Disc Golf Rule Nazi Stories

[_MTL_]

Ok. I agree. So how do we get more people not just to call things, but to pay attention to and then not get into a fight over it?

IMHO the reason people get upset when they play a PDGA that calls are made is because they are not being given the expecation that it will happen.

This starts by enforcing rules in local leagues and teaching the correct way to play.

There will ALWAYS be arguments over decisions - and that goes beyond sports. However I think if you set the expectation, the number of calls will increase and the number or arguements will decrease.

In my local league for years we were very strict about not drinking during play. And it took a while, but I very rarely if ever see alcohol during PDGA play now in my area - and that is a huge change.

 

[The Hammer]

Rule says you can take a meter. Taking your meter isn't pushing it. Taking 101 cm would be pushing it.

The rule says your supporting points must be on the tee pad. Coda's supporting point was on the tee-pad. The other rule says it has to be clearly an infraction for a call to occur. Nothing was clear, so no call.

 

[JC17393]

Very nicely worded and I agree. Now how do we deal with said situations? Do we take jump putts out? Do we say both feet have to be within the box? I'll agree some rules could be more concrete, but should they? Again I say that if we follow the rules (especially the spirit of the rule) as written and stop trying to gain advantage by pushing them things would be better. Not saying you can't use them to your advantage, but you shouldn't be consciously trying to reach the boundaries.

I don't feel either rule you mention needs to be changed. I also don't have a problem with "consciously trying to reach the boundaries" of these rules. I think the key here is you have a much narrower scope of the rules and how they should be followed than most. You keep referring to the pushing of boundaries as gaining advantage, but I'd argue that it's not unfair advantage since anyone can do the same thing, within the rules, if they so choose.

I'm reminded of the age-old argument about the old unplayable lie rule (now the optional rethrow rule). People used to argue against the application of the rule in situations where they didn't agree that the lie was unplayable, despite the fact that the rule explicitly put the determination of unplayable in the thrower's hands and only their hands. That it was against the "spirit" of the rule to use it to get out of a nasty but still playable lie. But it was such a bogus argument to me because any player could invoke the rule at any time they wanted.

By the same token, any player can flirt with the edges of any rule at any time. And they can get burned by it. I think it's a risk they knowingly take, so if they get called on it legitimately, they take their medicine. If they don't, either that means they're staying within the boundary or the others in the group don't have the guts to make a call.

I don't think the rules need to change to account for people uncomfortable with the edge flirting.

 

[jjpitt29]

How many times do I have to quote rule 801.01 B to you before you get it? YOU ARE WRONG. It has to be obvious they are breaking the rule, not staying within it.

So if it's not obvious that the foot is in the air then it's clearly on the ground. That is the rule. The rule you want to keep quoting is great, but not really helping. I was trying to point out the rule and what I think you should do to prevent violating it. I'm sorry you think otherwise.

 

[The Hammer]

So if it's not obvious that the foot is in the air then it's clearly on the ground. That is the rule. The rule you want to keep quoting is great, but not really helping. I was trying to point out the rule and what I think you should do to prevent violating it. I'm sorry you think otherwise.

Gotcha. However, just because you think people should do something, doesn't mean they are required to do so by the rules. If you are calling people on things based on how you think they should be, rather than how they are written, you are in the wrong. I'm not saying this is your behavior, but that was how I interpreted your statement. Right, wrong, or otherwise.

 

[JC17393]

Rule says you can take a meter. Taking your meter isn't pushing it. Taking 101 cm would be pushing it.

No, taking 101 cm is BREAKING the rule.

I think maybe we're all talking past each other. You seem to be interpreting pushing as stepping over the line. No one else is viewing that word in that context in this discussion. Pushing is getting close to the line without going over, or close enough to the line that it might look like you are going to go over. But going over the line isn't pushing the rule, that's breaking the rule.

 

[jjpitt29]

IMHO the reason people get upset when they play a PDGA that calls are made is because they are not being given the expecation that it will happen.

This starts by enforcing rules in local leagues and teaching the correct way to play.

There will ALWAYS be arguments over decisions - and that goes beyond sports. However I think if you set the expectation, the number of calls will increase and the number or arguements will decrease.

In my local league for years we were very strict about not drinking during play. And it took a while, but I very rarely if ever see alcohol during PDGA play now in my area - and that is a huge change.

That's awesome. I run a handicapped singles League and we have been very good about talking about stance violations and such. Just a friendly League so we don't stroke guys, but it has greatly reduced the violations we have. Especially for our younger kids. We have a lot of youngins here starting to play tournaments. So it has been very good for them.

 

[jobwilson]

This isn't a tourney rule, but the guy who runs our leagues has a rule that you HAVE to make your putt to win CTP.

I like this.

 

[Harrishabitat]

Yes, because starting a thread to tell your stories of "Rule Nazis" from the Wintertime Open in California and talk smack about your cardmates would never constitute singling them out and ridiculing them.

Or making Discette feel the need to come on here and defend herself against your story calling her a Rule Nazi was never about singling anyone out and ridiculing them.

Takes a lot of stones to say you have never singled out or ridiculed anyone inside the very thread you started ridiculing people and singling them out for asking you to play by the rules. Wow. :doh:

Seriously I don't understand your unnatural fascination with me...it's kinda bordering on stalking. Nor did I ridicule them or, in my opinion, talk smack about them.

Discette and I have communicated both on here and privately and as far as I am concerned we both respect each other and agreed that we might have disagreed on one specific incident that there was someone else in our group that was trying to get into people heads and unfairly use the rules to his advantage... Discette, if you are still reading this please correct me if I am wrong.

Singling anyone out would have involved me naming people specifically, which I never did.

And I don't know what it would take, but is there anyway to get you to never communicate with me directly again...

 

[Kodachrome]

So if it's not obvious that the foot is in the air then it's clearly on the ground. That is the rule. The rule you want to keep quoting is great, but not really helping. I was trying to point out the rule and what I think you should do to prevent violating it. I'm sorry you think otherwise.

no, he is trying to help you because if you called people on this you would get major hate, and probably feel bad (i hope) if you ever saw video and realized you made the wrong call because you were not sure.

he is trying to show you that the doubt goes to the player as per the rule. there was no clear violation. you are not following the rules by calling it. you have to affirm the violation, not doubt the legitimacy of the stance; you cannot use ambiguity as evidence for your claim or for anything in life, really. think of it like a court case: you could never use "well, his foot wasn't obviously in the air so it must have been on the ground". you'd get laughed at.

there is no "guilty due to uncertainty".

 

[Harrishabitat]

Bad example. Sorry.

Why is that a bad example??? Because it totally defeats your argument?

 

[jjpitt29]

I don't feel either rule you mention needs to be changed. I also don't have a problem with "consciously trying to reach the boundaries" of these rules. I think the key here is you have a much narrower scope of the rules and how they should be followed than most. You keep referring to the pushing of boundaries as gaining advantage, but I'd argue that it's not unfair advantage since anyone can do the same thing, within the rules, if they so choose.

I'm reminded of the age-old argument about the old unplayable lie rule (now the optional rethrow rule). People used to argue against the application of the rule in situations where they didn't agree that the lie was unplayable, despite the fact that the rule explicitly put the determination of unplayable in the thrower's hands and only their hands. That it was against the "spirit" of the rule to use it to get out of a nasty but still playable lie. But it was such a bogus argument to me because any player could invoke the rule at any time they wanted.

By the same token, any player can flirt with the edges of any rule at any time. And they can get burned by it. I think it's a risk they knowingly take, so if they get called on it legitimately, they take their medicine. If they don't, either that means they're staying within the boundary or the others in the group don't have the guts to make a call.

I don't think the rules need to change to account for people uncomfortable with the edge flirting.

I'm sure I do have a narrower scope as you say. I don't think rules should be changed. I was trying to reinforce the fact that most people can't deal with them being called. I don't think jump putts are pushing limits really. It's just hard to call. People should not be upset when t hey get called. Now not having a foot on the tee and arguing it was in the air on release is pushing it imo because I don't think the rule was intended for that. I think it's also forcing your card mates into an uncomfortable judgements call, but I suppose jump putts do that too.

I remember b the unplayable lie debate. Wasn't the reason they changed it to optional rethrow was that people weren't using it as intended, but as you said made sense. So they reworded it to accommodate the new waybit v was being used and eliminate disagreement?

 

[Harrishabitat]

I'm sure I do have a narrower scope as you say. I don't think rules should be changed. I was trying to reinforce the fact that most people can't deal with them being called. I don't think jump putts are pushing limits really. It's just hard to call. People should not be upset when t hey get called. Now not having a foot on the tee and arguing it was in the air on release is pushing it imo because I don't think the rule was intended for that. I think it's also forcing your card mates into an uncomfortable judgements call, but I suppose jump putts do that too.

I remember b the unplayable lie debate. Wasn't the reason they changed it to optional rethrow was that people weren't using it as intended, but as you said made sense. So they reworded it to accommodate the new waybit v was being used and eliminate disagreement?

This isn't some vague interpenetration rule this is black and white. You have to have one point of contact on the tee pad, he clearly does, so how is this in anyway violating what the rules was intended to be? Do you think if someone wants to run up from 10' behind the tee pad also violating the spirit of the rule? I am honestly confused with why you think any of this?

 

[The Hammer]

I'm sure I do have a narrower scope as you say. I don't think rules should be changed. I was trying to reinforce the fact that most people can't deal with them being called. I don't think jump putts are pushing limits really. It's just hard to call. People should not be upset when t hey get called. Now not having a foot on the tee and arguing it was in the air on release is pushing it imo because I don't think the rule was intended for that. I think it's also forcing your card mates into an uncomfortable judgements call, but I suppose jump putts do that too.

I remember b the unplayable lie debate. Wasn't the reason they changed it to optional rethrow was that people weren't using it as intended, but as you said made sense. So they reworded it to accommodate the new waybit v was being used and eliminate disagreement?

FWIW, I don't get mad when people call me for infractions (only happened twice) when I break a rule. I take my medicine and continue on. However, I would quickly get fired up if someone called me on something they "thought they saw, but weren't certain", or called me on a rule that simply doesn't exist.

One of my favorites that I have heard is not being allowed to add discs to your bag mid-round. Some ass-clown tried to use that on me during a tournament a few years ago. He didn't like my reaction.

 

[jjpitt29]

no, he is trying to help you because if you called people on this you would get major hate, and probably feel bad (i hope) if you ever saw video and realized you made the wrong call because you were not sure.

he is trying to show you that the doubt goes to the player as per the rule. there was no clear violation. you are not following the rules by calling it. you have to affirm the violation, not doubt the legitimacy of the stance; you cannot use ambiguity as evidence for your claim or for anything in life, really. think of it like a court case: you could never use "well, his foot wasn't obviously in the air so it must have been on the ground". you'd get laughed at.

there is no "guilty due to uncertainty".

If I made the call it would be because I was certain. I would not feel bad. Thank you for helping my point though. "Getting hate" for calling a rule. If that situation happens I usually ask the person if they know their foot needs to be off the ground. You'd be surprised by how many dont. If you doubt the legitimacy of a stance then you should say something and talk about it. That's the whole point.

He was not trying to help me lol. He was trying to argue that he had no responsibility to make sure he was following the rules imo. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Oh well.

 

[whitefedora]

Personally I keep a meter stick in my umbrella holder at all times. Don't want to accidentally place over the hundo cm. Might give me a completely unfair advantage.

 

[The Hammer]

If I made the call it would be because I was certain. I would not feel bad. Thank you for helping my point though. "Getting hate" for calling a rule. If that situation happens I usually ask the person if they know their foot needs to be off the ground. You'd be surprised by how many dont. If you doubt the legitimacy of a stance then you should say something and talk about it. That's the whole point.

He was not trying to help me lol. He was trying to argue that he had no responsibility to make sure he was following the rules imo. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Oh well.

I was saying I don't have the responsibility to be within the rules? I hope that's not what you think.

 

[jjpitt29]

This isn't some vague interpenetration rule this is black and white. You have to have one point of contact on the tee pad, he clearly does, so how is this in anyway violating what the rules was intended to be? Do you think if someone wants to run up from 10' behind the tee pad also violating the spirit of the rule? I am honestly confused with why you think any of this?

The whole point was you can't have another contact point off the pad. I used the video as an example because it's one I remembered. I never said coda faulted I was using it as an example.

The rule is very clear. I posed the question whether he was pushing the rules. You said no, I said yes.

 

[jjpitt29]

FWIW, I don't get mad when people call me for infractions (only happened twice) when I break a rule. I take my medicine and continue on. However, I would quickly get fired up if someone called me on something they "thought they saw, but weren't certain", or called me on a rule that simply doesn't exist.

One of my favorites that I have heard is not being allowed to add discs to your bag mid-round. Some ass-clown tried to use that on me during a tournament a few years ago. He didn't like my reaction.

That's a misinterpretation rule from ball golf I believe. I remember a long time ago that was debated a few times.

 

[_MTL_]

I like this.

I do too.

And you can techincally do that in a PDGA event.

Side payouts / games have nothing to do with the PDGA. This is why Ace Pools can be paid in cash to Amateurs without any risk of amateur status being revoked.