Cory Ellis 1:12 seconds clock

[seedlings]

This doesn't sound like a genuine question, but rather the search for a fight.

But, treating it as a genuine question, all of the rules have some ambiguity in application.

Let's take one of them, the requirement to be on the lie when releasing, with no supporting point past the lie. Can you honestly say that you always know whether someone straddle putting is or is not past the lie with their other foot? On a shot with a run up is their a painted box your foot has to hit? Would you know if someone did or did not touch the lie with the end of their shoe as they threw? Does the shoe have an upward curved toe? Did it actually contact the playing surface?

Or, how about the fact that the lie is defined relative to the line of play? Do you know the exact line of play? What about if you can't actually see the basket?

Even the most precise of the written rules require the assumption of good faith effort by the player.

Mine is a genuine question, but there is need to press points because of generalized answers like speeding tickets. I wanted a serious discussion.

Corey's was a very different situation than Tattar's daughter, or Nikko, and deserved a separate thread, IMHO.

While I am not a fan of subjective guidelines, I am ready to proceed knowing that the rules are subjective. I want to finally play some tournaments, and this was a necessary conversation for me.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

I totally agree with you and under no circumstances would i ever consider Corey to have committed a time violation on that shot. that said, under the rules, he did commit a violation, which only exposes that the time rules need to be rewritten.

 

[Al Dente]

Warning: Reductio ad absurdum to follow.

So, the 30 second rule should not apply anytime a player's previous shot was less than satisfactory and has left the player with a difficult stance and/or challenging shot. The level of dissatisfaction the player feels toward the previous throw, and the circumstance with which the player is now faced shall determine the time necessary to determine their lie and make their throw.

A player should only be warned that they are taking too much time after habitually violating the 30 second rule. Habitually will be defined by the group prior to play as A. every throw, B. every other throw, C. every third throw, etc.

No rule has been violated until it has been habitually violated.

As I don't habitually violate any of the rules, none of the rules apply to me.

 

[art_vandelay]

I'd hate to say the rules are subjective, because then they are not rules, just suggestions. You have to use some common sense. The rules are subjective in that they are subject to the vagaries of people observing any action by another person. The rules themselves are really just a framework to give players a way to settle disputes amongst themselves. Most times people are going to get called for rules violations when someone does something that is a perceived by card mates as a deliberate attempt to gain a mental or tactical advantage. If someone has not gained any kind of advantage from a said behavior, I look at it at a no harm no foul type situation.

 

[Steve West]

. . .but is it a rule that player B has to stand behind player A and wait for him to throw or CAN player B start to walk up to their discs before player A throws?

3.02 A. All competitors shall play without undue delay[...]

812 B.2. A player must[...]Watch the other members of the group throw in order to ensure rules compliance and to help find discs.

812 Courtesy A. 3. e. [...]A player must not: [...]Engage in distracting or unsportsmanlike actions such as:[...]Advancing beyond the away player; [...]

Players can and should get as close to their next lie as possible while still being able to watch the thrower, and without advancing beyond the away player.

You can be way off the other side of the fairway, you don't need to be standing behind the thrower. Just don't get in front of them.

Most players on the same card throw about the same distance most of the time, so everyone (and especially the next player after the away player) should usually be quite close to their own thrown disc when the away player is done.

Getting ready when it is not your turn takes some practice and awareness. Failing to do it is selfish and makes you a less desirable card mate.

 

[TheOtherBill]

So under "812 B.2. A player must[...]Watch the other members of the group throw in order to ensure rules compliance and to help find discs."

Does that mean someone from Brodie's card should have been deep in the woods watching GG?

Seems like that would add a great deal of time, especially at lower levels of competition.

 

[dmoore1998]

So under "812 B.2. A player must[...]Watch the other members of the group throw in order to ensure rules compliance and to help find discs."

Does that mean someone from Brodie's card should have been deep in the woods watching GG?

Seems like that would add a great deal of time, especially at lower levels of competition.

Yes, that's what it means. Not just "someone from Brodie's card"...all players should have been deep in the woods watching GG under the current rules.

"A player" means...each player in this context. Not just 1 per card. It isn't referencing a group and picking a player...it's referencing "a player" as in "you are a player" so you must do that.

 

[robdeforge]

So under "812 B.2. A player must[...]Watch the other members of the group throw in order to ensure rules compliance and to help find discs."

Does that mean someone from Brodie's card should have been deep in the woods watching GG?

Seems like that would add a great deal of time, especially at lower levels of competition.

I think you can observe most rules compliance issues from a distance so you probably would not need to be "deep in the woods" for that scenario, but yes players should be in a position so that they can see other players when they throw.

This doesn't sound like a genuine question, but rather the search for a fight.

But, treating it as a genuine question, all of the rules have some ambiguity in application.

Let's take one of them, the requirement to be on the lie when releasing, with no supporting point past the lie. Can you honestly say that you always know whether someone straddle putting is or is not past the lie with their other foot? On a shot with a run up is their a painted box your foot has to hit? Would you know if someone did or did not touch the lie with the end of their shoe as they threw? Does the shoe have an upward curved toe? Did it actually contact the playing surface?

Or, how about the fact that the lie is defined relative to the line of play? Do you know the exact line of play? What about if you can't actually see the basket?

Even the most precise of the written rules require the assumption of good faith effort by the player.

this is a really simple answer: you're only expected to call violations that clearly occur. (emphasis mine)

 

[BillFleming]

I think you can observe most rules compliance issues from a distance so you probably would not need to be "deep in the woods" for that scenario, but yes players should be in a position so that they can see other players when they throw.



this is a really simple answer: you're only expected to call violations that clearly occur. (emphasis mine)

True, you don't need to be deep in the woods with the thrower, just able to see what they are doing. Why? A perfect example was a recent Jomez practice round at DGLO. Uli was deep in the woods, no one was near him, he had an awesome throw out of the woods. After getting congrats on the recovery, he admitted he moved his disc. Granted this was only practice, but still he moved his lie illegally and no one called him on it because they weren't there to see it.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

True, you don't need to be deep in the woods with the thrower, just able to see what they are doing.

but still he moved his lie illegally and no one called him on it because they weren't there to see it.

I fixed this for you.
"True, you don't need to be deep in the woods with the thrower, just able to see what they are doing, as long as the thrower is honest.

 

[dmoore1998]

True, you don't need to be deep in the woods with the thrower, just able to see what they are doing. Why? A perfect example was a recent Jomez practice round at DGLO. Uli was deep in the woods, no one was near him, he had an awesome throw out of the woods. After getting congrats on the recovery, he admitted he moved his disc. Granted this was only practice, but still he moved his lie illegally and no one called him on it because they weren't there to see it.

You need to be able to see what they are doing...to the level of being able to tell if they foot fault. If someone is "deep in the woods"...it seems unlikely you can accurately determine that without also being "deep in the woods" yourself (not necessarily next to them...but you're probably going to be pretty in there).

 

[glassila]

How about this theory:

A family sedan will get pulled over less often than a bright red sports car. If you are driving down the road and a vehicle catches your eye, it does the same for the officer. Same might go for something with a loud engine.

In the disc golf world, a play that keeps his cool and is generally a pleasant person to play with will probably never get called for a time violation. But a guy that throws a temper tantrum at every missed putt will have a target on his back. Like Nikko.

With a speeding car or a player going over the time limit it's the excessiveness of the violation that is going to result in a ticket or penalty.
A family sedan going 90mph is going to get pulled over and if the most likeable player on the tour (Big Jerm?) takes 2 minutes to throw he is going to get called. If there is a target on Nikko's back it's because he is a known violator of the 30 second clock NOT because he has temper tantrums over missed putts.

 

[BillFleming]

You need to be able to see what they are doing...to the level of being able to tell if they foot fault. If someone is "deep in the woods"...it seems unlikely you can accurately determine that without also being "deep in the woods" yourself (not necessarily next to them...but you're probably going to be pretty in there).

I just said that you don't need to be deep in the woods if you can see what they are doing. That is true. If you can't see what they are doing, then - yes- you need to get deep in the woods with them.

 

[dmoore1998]

I just said that you don't need to be deep in the woods if you can see what they are doing. That is true. If you can't see what they are doing, then - yes- you need to get deep in the woods with them.

Yes, just clarifying what "see what they're doing" involves. Your example was of someone moving their disc, which might be a pretty obvious movement. A timing of arriving at and determining lie might be pretty easily viewed from further away. I'm imagining (maybe due to my age and eyesight) that truly accurately discerning a foot fault might need to be pretty close. Or maybe it's my mental image of what "deep in the woods" looks like.

Or maybe it's my mental image of "see what they're doing". I imagine a lot of people take that to mean "I can see you, so we're good". Which might be very different from "I can accurately determine if you've committed a foot fault".

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Formally warning everyone we've exceeded the time limit for discussing the subject.

Next violation is gonna cost everyone a stroke.

 

[VictorB]

As I don't habitually violate any of the rules, none of the rules apply to me.

Incorrect - since you don't habitually violate the rules, THE PENALTIES do not apply to you. Your game 'normally' operates within the bounds of the rules, so the rules are being applied and followed, but penalties are not applied due to lack of violations

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Incorrect - since you don't habitually violate the rules, THE PENALTIES do not apply to you. Your game 'normally' operates within the bounds of the rules, so the rules are being applied and followed, but penalties are not applied due to lack of violations

That's some reasonably good parsing of words.

 

[glassila]

I'd hate to say the rules are subjective, because then they are not rules, just suggestions. You have to use some common sense. The rules are subjective in that they are subject to the vagaries of people observing any action by another person. The rules themselves are really just a framework to give players a way to settle disputes amongst themselves. Most times people are going to get called for rules violations when someone does something that is a perceived by card mates as a deliberate attempt to gain a mental or tactical advantage. If someone has not gained any kind of advantage from a said behavior, I look at it at a no harm no foul type situation.

In the case of Cory Ellis taking over a minute to throw, I doubt if other players feel he was trying to gain an advantage. That is, I think all players feel that taking over a minute to throw from that situation is reasonable and expected.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

I was the official with the card and remember this moment. I honestly timed Corey on this shot and got 29.5 seconds.

A few things to remember:

1. The clock does not start until the playing area is clear. There were people EVERYWHERE. This is also very subjective.
2. The clock does not starting until you have had a chance to determine your lie. This is allowed due to the footing and obtaining a legal stance. When he was kneeling down and other things, that is what is doing.

Just like balls and strikes in baseball umpires and holding in the NFL, this stuff has subjectiveness to it.

Not a single person on the card nor anyone officially involved with the event mentioned a word about this.

Thanks for the insight man!

Just wondering if there was any extra PDGA guidance about the application of the rule?

And a big thanks for volunteering to officiate! You're a class act.

I also quoted you because I wanted to say hey we had a DGCR guy on the ground for this event.. I am absolutely satisfied with how it went down...

The call has been made..

Everyone can STFU about Cory and we can continue worrying about ourselves and speculate about the bitter individual we may end up carded with.

 

[Al Dente]

Incorrect - since you don't habitually violate the rules, THE PENALTIES do not apply to you. Your game 'normally' operates within the bounds of the rules, so the rules are being applied and followed, but penalties are not applied due to lack of violations

A distinction without a difference.