Broken Disc in Basket

[Steve West]

It's "benefit to the player" in sanctioned play when the vote in the group on the ruling is tied. If the ruling itself is unclear, then the player should take a provisional by marking and playing from the largest piece and let the TD decide after the round whether the small piece is ruled a hole out or not.

It would be nice if that was how the provisional rule worked, but it's not. There are only two situations where a player can make provisional throws. "Because the group wants to punt to the TD" is not one of the two.

As the disc in this scenario is definitely not OB, lost, or missed a mando, the "save time" reason in 809.02 B. 1. is not applicable.

So, for this situation the only way the Provisional section can be invoked is if a player makes an appeal, in which case 809.02 B. 2. comes into play.

The proper order would be to:

- Try to get more players ruling one way than the other.
- If the group can't, rule in favor of the thrower.
- THEN if anyone doesn't agree with that ruling and thinks it should be overturned, they can make an appeal. At that point - IF there is no one nearby to appeal to - the thrower MAY, but is not required to, make a set of provisional throws.​

801.03 Appeals
A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower.
B. A player may appeal a group decision to an Official, or an Official's decision to the Director, by clearly and promptly stating that desire to the group. If an Official or the Director is readily available, the group may stand aside and allow other groups to play through while the appeal is being heard.
C. If an Official or Director is not readily available, the thrower may make a set of provisional throws for each additional possible outcome of the ruling, and later appeal the ruling to an Official or to the Director when practical.
[…]

809.02 Provisional Throw
A. A provisional throw is an extra throw that is not added to a player's score if it is not ultimately used in the completion of the hole. The player must inform the group that a throw is provisional prior to making it.
B. Provisional throws are used:
1. To save time. A player may declare a provisional throw any time:
a. The status of a disc cannot be readily determined because it may be lost, out-of-bounds, or have missed a mandatory; and,
b. The group agrees that a provisional throw may save time.
The thrower then continues play from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an Official to have resulted in the correct lie.
2. To appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when a player in the group disagrees with a group decision and an Official is not readily available, or if a player in the group wishes to appeal the decision of an Official. The scores from both sets of throws are recorded. Once the appeal has been resolved, only the score from the correct set of throws is counted.

[Bold added.]

 

[Cgkdisc]

What's the penalty for playing a provisional when the situation does not qualify? (Especially when the Competition Committee via Big Dog and others encourage players to take provisionals when the group is unclear on a ruling, presumably to save time per the provisional rule)

 

[txmxer]

What's the penalty for playing a provisional when the situation does not qualify? (Especially when the Competition Committee via Big Dog and others encourage players to take provisionals when the group is unclear on a ruling, presumably to save time per the provisional rule)

It seems to me a provisional would "save time" in this example. The written rule doesn't explicitly state a broken disc, but IMO it reads like it's open ended and related to the status of a disc/lie.

The RC cannot be expected to conceive of and/or list all the ways a disc's status might be in question.

That said, IF there is a clearly larger piece of the broken disc that is on the ground, then I feel the rules address this adequately and the play is based on the location of the larger piece.

 

[chevis]

It would be nice if that was how the provisional rule worked, but it's not. There are only two situations where a player can make provisional throws. "Because the group wants to punt to the TD" is not one of the two.

As the disc in this scenario is definitely not OB, lost, or missed a mando, the "save time" reason in 809.02 B. 1. is not applicable.

So, for this situation the only way the Provisional section can be invoked is if a player makes an appeal, in which case 809.02 B. 2. comes into play.

The proper order would be to:

- Try to get more players ruling one way than the other.
- If the group can't, rule in favor of the thrower.
- THEN if anyone doesn't agree with that ruling and thinks it should be overturned, they can make an appeal. At that point - IF there is no one nearby to appeal to - the thrower MAY, but is not required to, make a set of provisional throws.​

just to taking this to the td: the split decision rules in favor of the thrower; one of the players can appeal to the td. does that player need to ask the broken disc player to play a provisional (at that time) because they are going to appeal to the td, or can they just decide at the end when they see/know that stroke matters?

 

[krupicka]

just to taking this to the td: the split decision rules in favor of the thrower; one of the players can appeal to the td. does that player need to ask the broken disc player to play a provisional (at that time) because they are going to appeal to the td, or can they just decide at the end when they see/know that stroke matters?

One player cannot force another player to play a provisional. The thrower has to decide if it is worth the chance of a misplay if they are wrong though.

I may be misinterpreting your second question though. I am reading what you wrote that the player might not bother bringing it to the TDs attention if for example the thrower is in last place. Rules should be applied consistently across the board whether the player is in first or last. (If that was not what you meant, my apologies).

 

[chevis]

One player cannot force another player to play a provisional. The thrower has to decide if it is worth the chance of a misplay if they are wrong though.

I may be misinterpreting your second question though. I am reading what you wrote that the player might not bother bringing it to the TDs attention if for example the thrower is in last place. Rules should be applied consistently across the board whether the player is in first or last. (If that was not what you meant, my apologies).

here's what i'm saying: there's a card of 4 in this situation where 2 think the disc is holed out & 2 think it's not. can one of the two that think it's not yet holed out appeal to the td? does this player need to tell the group they will be appealing this to the td?
can the player decide at the end it is not worth the time of an appeal because that stroke isn't going to change the outcome anyway?

 

[krupicka]

here's what i'm saying: there's a card of 4 in this situation where 2 think the disc is holed out & 2 think it's not. can one of the two that think it's not yet holed out appeal to the td? does this player need to tell the group they will be appealing this to the td?
can the player decide at the end it is not worth the time of an appeal because that stroke isn't going to change the outcome anyway?

Yes the player can appeal to the TD.
The should tell the group they are appealing.
The player should not be deciding at the end if it is worth their time. That should never be a factor.

 

[roblee]

....One player cannot force another player to play a provisional. The thrower has to decide if it is worth the chance of a misplay if they are wrong though.....

Yikes. This means that a player can elect to throw a provisional, the card agrees this is reasonable, and the player can subsequently be penalized 1 or 2 throws for Incorrect Lie? Or would it be Practice Throws? Seems harsh & maybe not necessary. I have many memories of Big Dawg, "Provisional, Provisional, Provisional!"

 

[krupicka]

One player cannot force another player to play a provisional. The thrower has to decide if it is worth the chance of a misplay if they are wrong though.

Yikes. This means that a player can elect to throw a provisional, the card agrees this is reasonable, and the player can subsequently be penalized 1 or 2 throws for Incorrect Lie? Or would it be Practice Throws? Seems harsh & maybe not necessary. I have many memories of Big Dawg, "Provisional, Provisional, Provisional!"

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was in a situation where there is a disagreement on a ruling and another player thinks the thrower should throw a provisional, if the thrower chooses not to throw a provisional and the other players were indeed correct, they may end up with having to take a misplay penalty.

 

[roblee]

Thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand.

 

[araytx]

Just going by OP: Part of the disc is in the basket. Like you, I've never seen this happen and never will. But since we're spitballing here… I'm saying since part of the disc is in the basket supported according to the rules, then we jump to the section on completing a hole, instead of the section on determining the lie… giving the benefit of doubt to the player… just like the 30s rule is not hard and fast and gives benefit to the player. I'm saying nothing more or less than that.

The debate is between which rule applies: completing the hole OR determining the lie. I say give benefit to the player, that's all.

Edit: I'm also not saying mine is the only way to approach the situation. I understand the counter argument that uses the larger piece to determine the lie. I would disagree if I were on the card. And if we spent several minutes to determine an answer… that's like spending minutes determining if a disc is in bounds. If it's unclear- benefit to player.

We need to stop using the phrase "benefit of the doubt to the player" in reference to the PDGA rules. I have said for years that this "expression" is the most mis-applied and mis-understood (NON-)rule we have.

801.03A ONLY applies when a group cannot come to a majority decision on a ruling (meaning IB/OB, missed/not missed mando, in/out hazard, etc) -- NOT on "what they think a rule means".

And the wording in 801.03A has been for some time now, "when a group cannot reach a majority decision...ruling is...interpretation most beneficial to the thrower." But again, this ONLY applies to these specific situations -- NOT which rule I think is closest to the current situation!

There isn't a "benefit if the doubt to the player" in this rule! The word "doubt" isn't in there. So many times I've heard players trying to incorporate this when they are unsure, because they've heard that expression with the word "doubt", and "doubt" implies you are unsure. But that IS NOT the rule.

 

[seedlings]

We need to stop using the phrase "benefit of the doubt to the player" in reference to the PDGA rules. I have said for years that this "expression" is the most mis-applied and mis-understood (NON-)rule we have.

801.03A ONLY applies when a group cannot come to a majority decision on a ruling (meaning IB/OB, missed/not missed mando, in/out hazard, etc) -- NOT on "what they think a rule means".

And the wording in 801.03A has been for some time now, "when a group cannot reach a majority decision...ruling is...interpretation most beneficial to the thrower." But again, this ONLY applies to these specific situations -- NOT which rule I think is closest to the current situation!

There isn't a "benefit if the doubt to the player" in this rule! The word "doubt" isn't in there. So many times I've heard players trying to incorporate this when they are unsure, because they've heard that expression with the word "doubt", and "doubt" implies you are unsure. But that IS NOT the rule.

I getcha. I really do. Until all the rules are applied as written to all players in all circumstances, I'm not sure the spirit of the sentiment will ever die. As I said, the easy example is that 30s rule, which is both enormously flexible and situationally dependent.

 

[Dcinmd]

The only disc I've seen come apart -that wasn't hit by the park & rec mower- was vintage-ish Innova CE on a tree hit.

My poor 2007 ESP Avenger exploded couple weeks ago. It was in the mid 50's didn't seem to hit the tree too hard. : (

 

[robdeforge]

I getcha. I really do. Until all the rules are applied as written to all players in all circumstances, I'm not sure the spirit of the sentiment will ever die. As I said, the easy example is that 30s rule, which is both enormously flexible and situationally dependent.

most of the time when somebody says "benefit of the doubt goes to the player" what they REALLY mean is "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" which is actually pretty much exactly what the rules say to do. so it's mostly really just a presentation thing IMO

 

[araytx]

most of the time when somebody says "benefit of the doubt goes to the player" what they REALLY mean is "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" which is actually pretty much exactly what the rules say to do. so it's mostly really just a presentation thing IMO

And rob, I am going to disagree with that wholeheartedly.

That is NOT what the rule says. When there is a determination to be made on the status of a thrown disc, here is how it works as I understand it -- and I'll use IB/OB for the example but the same applies to the other situation.

You're in a PDGA tournament assigned to a 4- player grouping: all tee off and Player B's throw comes to rest near an OB area. When all get to B's disc here are several examples of how it goes -- including yours.

Ex.1: Player A, Player C, and Player D all say that disc is out-of-bounds -- Decision: Out-of-Bounds

Ex.2: Player A says the disc is out of bounds and Players C & D say it is inbounds -- Decision: in bounds

(NOTE: IN both examples above Player B DOES get a vote, but as you can see in both cases Player B's vote does not change the outcome) 801.02A majority decision

Ex.3: Player A says inbounds, Players C & D say out-of-bounds, Player B then looks and says they think it is inbounds -- Decision: in-bounds via 801.03A , there is no majority decision, the vote is 2-2, therefore the ruling is the interpretation most beneficial to Player B. (I'll not quibble if someone claims some weird scenario where OB is more beneficial)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now lets get the ones you're talking about

Ex.4: Players A & C say out-of-bounds, but Player D goes with some form of your "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" -- basically Player D does not vote at all. Decision: out-of-bounds The group has a 2 votes for OB, 1 no vote at all, so the best Player B can have if they call it inbounds is still a 2-1 vote for OB -- 801.02A majority decision

Note: This is different from the hem-haw of Player D saying "it's too close for me to call, so I'll just say it's good" In that case you have the same as example 3 above

Ex.5: Player A says it's inbounds, Player C says out-of-bounds, and then Player D goes with some form of "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" -- basically Player D (again) does not vote at all. In this example the vote is 1-1, so whatever Player B thinks it is will be the final decision, by 801.02A majority decision. If Player B ALSO decides to not vote at all, it is ruled inbounds by 801.03A no majority decision (still 1-1), so ruling is interpretation most beneficial to Player B.

Ex. 6 Players A, C & D, all say some version of "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" -- basically all three of them do not vote at all.

The outcome is the same as #5 above. B's decision will be the controlling majority decision via 801.02A, and if B says he's not going to vote at all it's ruled inbounds via 801.03A


That is my understanding of how it's supposed to go. Now I can get WHY you think the old, "if I'm in doubt or if I don't want to say anything at all, then it's to be ruled good," but that isn't the rule at all. That's not what it says. I also will leave it alone that the rules also say you're supposed to make the call one way or the other, but that's neither here nor there. In reality we all know there are some players who just won't in certain situation. Now that's different from an "I didn't see it," like for a missed/not missed mando or foot fault stance violation. An IB/OB disc to be ruled on is still there to look at before the ruling is made.

 

[_MTL_]

most of the time when somebody says "benefit of the doubt goes to the player" what they REALLY mean is "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" which is actually pretty much exactly what the rules say to do. so it's mostly really just a presentation thing IMO

I agree that when people say benefit of the doubt they mean it's too close. However, the bolded part as well as their assumption is incorrect.

Benefit of the doubt is simply a tiebreaker vote. If 2 say in and 2 say out, this is where benefit of the doubt kicks in - it's in because the card vote tied and the player gets the better call.

As a marshal, I feel this is def not the most broken rule, but absolutely the most misinterpreted.

This is discussed in the rules Q and A at https://www.pdga.com/faq/rules/qa-a...b-i-think-its-unclear-doesnt-benefit-doubt-go

 

[robdeforge]

And rob, I am going to disagree with that wholeheartedly.

That is NOT what the rule says. When there is a determination to be made on the status of a thrown disc, here is how it works as I understand it -- and I'll use IB/OB for the example but the same applies to the other situation.

You're in a PDGA tournament assigned to a 4- player grouping: all tee off and Player B's throw comes to rest near an OB area. When all get to B's disc here are several examples of how it goes -- including yours.

Ex.1: Player A, Player C, and Player D all say that disc is out-of-bounds -- Decision: Out-of-Bounds

Ex.2: Player A says the disc is out of bounds and Players C & D say it is inbounds -- Decision: in bounds

(NOTE: IN both examples above Player B DOES get a vote, but as you can see in both cases Player B's vote does not change the outcome) 801.02A majority decision

Ex.3: Player A says inbounds, Players C & D say out-of-bounds, Player B then looks and says they think it is inbounds -- Decision: in-bounds via 801.03A , there is no majority decision, the vote is 2-2, therefore the ruling is the interpretation most beneficial to Player B. (I'll not quibble if someone claims some weird scenario where OB is more beneficial)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now lets get the ones you're talking about

Ex.4: Players A & C say out-of-bounds, but Player D goes with some form of your "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" -- basically Player D does not vote at all. Decision: out-of-bounds The group has a 2 votes for OB, 1 no vote at all, so the best Player B can have if they call it inbounds is still a 2-1 vote for OB -- 801.02A majority decision

Note: This is different from the hem-haw of Player D saying "it's too close for me to call, so I'll just say it's good" In that case you have the same as example 3 above

Ex.5: Player A says it's inbounds, Player C says out-of-bounds, and then Player D goes with some form of "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" -- basically Player D (again) does not vote at all. In this example the vote is 1-1, so whatever Player B thinks it is will be the final decision, by 801.02A majority decision. If Player B ALSO decides to not vote at all, it is ruled inbounds by 801.03A no majority decision (still 1-1), so ruling is interpretation most beneficial to Player B.

Ex. 6 Players A, C & D, all say some version of "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it" -- basically all three of them do not vote at all.

The outcome is the same as #5 above. B's decision will be the controlling majority decision via 801.02A, and if B says he's not going to vote at all it's ruled inbounds via 801.03A


That is my understanding of how it's supposed to go. Now I can get WHY you think the old, "if I'm in doubt or if I don't want to say anything at all, then it's to be ruled good," but that isn't the rule at all. That's not what it says. I also will leave it alone that the rules also say you're supposed to make the call one way or the other, but that's neither here nor there. In reality we all know there are some players who just won't in certain situation. Now that's different from an "I didn't see it," like for a missed/not missed mando or foot fault stance violation. An IB/OB disc to be ruled on is still there to look at before the ruling is made.

Sorry, maybe I didn't do a good job of explaining what I meant. I'll try again, because I don't think we're necessarily in disagreement...

Plenty of people DO misapply the "benefit of the doubt goes to the player" principle because, according to the rules, it should ONLY come into play as a tiebreaker (as you mentioned in your post). However, I think when people say they are "giving the benefit of the doubt to the player", what they really mean is "the call is too close to be made, so I won't make it".

801.02.B says "Players are expected to call a violation when one has clearly occurred." My belief is that often times when players SAY "I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the player" what they REALLY mean is "I don't think that violation clearly occurred, so I won't call it". Which is actually the correct application of the rules, even if they are going about it incorrectly.

Players A & C say out-of-bounds, but Player D goes with some form of your "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it"

AFAIK if player D says the call is too close for them to be sure, so they won't make it, they are calling the disc in bounds by default because if they aren't calling it out of bounds then it has to be in bounds.

 

[araytx]

....

Players A & C say out-of-bounds, but Player D goes with some form of your "the call is too close for me to be sure, so I won't make it"

AFAIK if player D says the call is too close for them to be sure, so they won't make it, they are calling the disc in bounds by default because if they aren't calling it out of bounds then it has to be in bounds.

Rob, On the others yes, but what we do disagree on is this last piece. If a player says, "I'm not making a call" (or WON'T make a call) on an IB/OB decision, I don't see any authority under 801.02A for you to say they are making the call as inbounds far as you're concerned. To me that is a "I'm not going to vote at all", or tantamount to an abstention. Hence why I didn't count D's vote either way in Example 4.

Disagree???

 

[_MTL_]

If a player refuses to make a call, a courtesy warning should be issued.

812 B Clear says a player must perform actions expected by the rules and making calls is clearly a part of the rules of disc golf.

So when this has happened I've said "Ok, player who refuses to make a call, you have two options. You can either make a call or I will issue you a courtesy warning for failure to perform this action."

99% of the time they make a call.

If the continue to not make a call, the remaining members of the card should vote and then we are back to the simply majority / benefit of the doubt rule.

Let's say that the vote goes against the player and they feel that because the person not making the call is refusing to make that call, the player should explore an appeal option to an official / TD.

It's a really tricky situation. I've never seen it get past the two option conversation.

 

[roblee]

If a player refuses to make a call, a courtesy warning should be issued.

812 B Clear says a player must perform actions expected by the rules and making calls is clearly a part of the rules of disc golf.

So when this has happened I've said "Ok, player who refuses to make a call, you have two options. You can either make a call or I will issue you a courtesy warning for failure to perform this action."

.

I've had several occasions where I couldn't tell if a disc was IB or OB. Is that moist soil or surrounded by water? Is that disc buried by a layer of thatch past that cable that is 3' above it? Given my level of visual acuity and ability to interpret those data I must be 100% certain of the discs status before I would make the call. If I'm not 100% certain, I can't make the call. If you issued me a courtesy warning I would accept it with a smile and think, "Wow, you are fun to play with."