Has this ever happened to anyone else?

[Kodachrome]

I don't think you sounded angry or whiny or anything, but I think it could have been rectified with some knowledge. We agree it's a unique situation, that's why it has incited a rules discussion! It's good to hear about this kind of stuff and practice applying the rules so we don't have to worry about it on the course.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I may not be sure about how to call it, but what I can say is that the game needs more people like the OP - people who take things in stride and don't lose their minds. I have nothing against taking the game seriously, but we've all seen players who make bad situations worse by getting all pissed off and escalating things.
Kudos for handling it like a man!

 

[pmorgan1214]

I would have called interferance and gone and taken a reputt. same as if someone calls foot foul. you can take another go at it without a stroke penalty for the first one. Either way you should have reputted.

 

[JC17393]

I would have called interferance and gone and taken a reputt. same as if someone calls foot foul. you can take another go at it without a stroke penalty for the first one. Either way you should have reputted.

You don't get a re-throw unless the interference was intentional, and in the OP's situation, that is not the case. Any interference was accidental and unintentional. No penalties, no re-throws.

 

[nolangherity]

You don't get a re-throw unless the interference was intentional, and in the OP's situation, that is not the case. Any interference was accidental and unintentional. No penalties, no re-throws.

nobody could know what the guys intent was. should we bring lie detector tests out to the course to decide rulings?

 

[JC17393]

nobody could know what the guys intent was. should we bring lie detector tests out to the course to decide rulings?

So the guy throwing his disc into the basket, which is the point of the game, isn't being obvious with his intent?

I get it. There's plenty of room to debate whether the word "intentional" should be part of the rule. But for now, it's in there...repeatedly. So if we're talking about playing under the current rules of the game, intent absolutely has to be considered. And judgement of intent is in the hands of the players in the group who are witnessing everything first-hand.

The offending player in the OP's case was apologetic and clear that he didn't mean to cause interference. The OP says he doesn't believe the player did it with the intent to knock his disc out of the basket. Apparently, none of the other players in the group believed there was intent, either. Nothing more needs to be debated if they're all in agreement.

 

[joshuajames]

"Players shall not stand or leave their equipment where interference with a disc in play may occur". He was attempting a throw. Out of turn or not, that's not leaving his equipment. "Leaving" implies at rest. The disc wasn't at rest when the "interference" took place. It was in motion.

At most, he gets a courtesy warning (or a courtesy penalty if he's already received a courtesy warning during the round) for throwing out of turn. There's no provisional to take since there are no throws or re-throws involved with a courtesy violation.

So if my bag starts to slide or roll down a hill while someone throws and they hit it. No stroke for me?

 

[JoakimBL]

So if my bag starts to slide or roll down a hill while someone throws and they hit it. No stroke for me?

No of course not. A penalty for what? What rule did you break?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

So if my bag starts to slide or roll down a hill while someone throws and they hit it. No stroke for me?

Hey, if it makes you feel better, I'll add a stroke to your score.

 

[gcanter2376]

So i emailed pdga and this was their response.


First of all, props for being such an even-keeled person. Many players would have had a fit.

There's no obvious answer for this situation. Obviously, it would have been better if the player on your left had been paying
more attention. He could possibly have been given a courtesy warning for playing out of turn, but that wouldn't have helped you.
It also doesn't*quite fit into the interference rules, as it's hard to call it intentional (as in malicious) interference, which would result in a
re-throw for you. You also bear some responsibility for not noticing that someone else may have been intending to putt out.
(When I'm putting out, I usually make eye contact with anyone else who may be putting out at the same time.)

So, given the rules as they are now, I think it falls under "**** happens", and again I commend you for*your equanimity.