Is it legal

[JC17393]

This is just one person's made-up interpretation and carries no weight, probably because it's vague and completely unenforceable. 30 seconds is measurable. "As promptly as possible" is so ambiguous that it effectively has no meaning.

Yeah, because the 30 seconds as stated in the rules gets enforced so strictly as the rule is written. If we're not going to pull out a stop watch on every throw, the 30 seconds is unenforceable too.

Given a choice, I think if we're going to have a time limit, make it a real time limit. And define exactly when it starts (already done) AND any and all conditions in which it can be paused, stopped, or re-set. Otherwise, my interpretation of the rule is as valid as anyone arguing that the clock does reset at every "distraction".

If we want precision in rules enforcement, we need precision in the rules themselves. I'm all for precision and would welcome clarification one way or the other in the next rules updated.

 

[biscoe]

Yeah, because the 30 seconds as stated in the rules gets enforced so strictly as the rule is written. If we're not going to pull out a stop watch on every throw, the 30 seconds is unenforceable too.

Given a choice, I think if we're going to have a time limit, make it a real time limit. And define exactly when it starts (already done) AND any and all conditions in which it can be paused, stopped, or re-set. Otherwise, my interpretation of the rule is as valid as anyone arguing that the clock does reset at every "distraction".

If we want precision in rules enforcement, we need precision in the rules themselves. I'm all for precision and would welcome clarification one way or the other in the next rules updated.

IMO extrapolation of rules should go in the direction of allowing things rather than disallowing. Basically if it isn't proscribed then it is permitted. Once we start extrapolating the other way we have opened a whole new can of worms.

 

[IHearChains]

Yeah, because the 30 seconds as stated in the rules gets enforced so strictly as the rule is written. If we're not going to pull out a stop watch on every throw, the 30 seconds is unenforceable too.

No. You're conflating "enforceable" with "enforced". Those two words have different meaning.

Your suggested timing of "as promptly as possible" is completely arbitrary and subjective, and there is no way to make it enforceable, even if you wanted to. On the other hand, 30 seconds is precisely defined and objective, and anyone could measure it and enforce it if desired. The fact that some people choose not to enforce it is a separate issue.

 

[kerplunk]

"A player has taken excessive time if they are present and have not thrown within 30 seconds ... after the playing area is clear and free of distractions."

I think this is perfectly clear. If there is a distraction the player has only taken excessive time if they do not throw within 30 seconds of that distraction going away. In other words the 30 second clock resets with a distraction.

What's unclear about that? Seriously, not trolling.

 

[kerplunk]

Played in Ohio doubles and wonder if this is legal. Player A tees off and then runs down the fairway to see if his disc is in good place before partner tees off.

Perhaps it's determined that you're not the away player . . . That would be quite the conundrum. Either courtesy violation for playing out of turn, or 30 second violation (and perhaps several) . . .

I think this goes against the spirit of the game, and failing that seems technically illegal for advancing beyond the lie of the away player, as Dan mentioned.

I say the opponents are within their right to call shenanigans and get their brooms.

 

[Jay Dub]

"A player has taken excessive time if they are present and have not thrown within 30 seconds ... after the playing area is clear and free of distractions."

I think this is perfectly clear. If there is a distraction the player has only taken excessive time if they do not throw within 30 seconds of that distraction going away. In other words the 30 second clock resets with a distraction.

What's unclear about that? Seriously, not trolling.

Define distraction.
That's what's unclear, imo.

 

[kerplunk]

Define distraction.
That's what's unclear, imo.

Unfortunately that cannot be clearly defined, but I think it's one of those things where 99.99% of the time it's pretty clear whether there was a legitimate distraction or someone was trying to game the rules.

But once a distraction can be agree upon, I think resetting the clock is pretty clear.

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

Define distraction.
That's what's unclear, imo.

One of my most common distractions is the fact that I have to fart.

 

[UP Mountain Man]

One of my most common distractions is the fact that I have to fart.

It's even more of a distraction after you don't have to fart, Matt...

 

[jdw80550]

The best solution would be to have the opposing card go down the fairway and spot. They can then relay information back to teebox as to whether or not the disc is inbounds. Then the cards would switch spotting.

For the people that would say cheating might occur, the answer is yes, it might. But if that happens, the other card has a chance to cheat too.

 

[araytx]

"A player has taken excessive time if they are present and have not thrown within 30 seconds ... after the playing area is clear and free of distractions."

I think this is perfectly clear. If there is a distraction the player has only taken excessive time if they do not throw within 30 seconds of that distraction going away. In other words the 30 second clock resets with a distraction.

What's unclear about that? Seriously, not trolling.

So a player is taking his full 30 seconds, at about the 28 second mark and just as he was to throw someone walks out in the middle of the fairway. Are you saying that once that person leaves, the player needs to rush and make his throw in under 2 seconds?

No. I'm saying he doesn't get a new full 30 seconds just because someone walked out in front of him before he threw. I don't think he needs to throw in 2 seconds after that, but I don't think he's entitled to a new 30 seconds either. Just throw promptly once it's safe to do so. I mean, whatever preparations occurred that took up the 28 seconds shouldn't all need to be repeated, no? A new 30 seconds shouldn't be necessary anyway.

If we had an actual shot clock in the game and people actually timed every throw to the second, then maybe the concern over "what if the safety concern happens at the 28-second mark" would be a justifiable argument. We don't do that. The only time the clock gets brought up (aside from these types of threads) is if a player seems to be taking too long. Otherwise, we're just guessing at the time that has lapsed.

My point is that unless the wording of the rule is changed to support the notion of re-setting the clock entirely, the emphasis should be on throwing as promptly as possible once the conditions for the 30-second clock have been met, even if one has to pause for safety concerns on occasion.

We are all stating our own "interpretations" here. And clearly the RC wants no part of this argument, because they've avoided clarifying it for years. I guess I'll share mine. My struggle with the "reset philosophy" is the player who, like Krupicka says is taking 28-29-30 seconds on every throw, then if/when some "new" distraction enters his throwing area decides he gets to go through this entire routine again. For those who think that is correct, I could contend that on a windy day, I could wait forever. There's gonna be something that blows across my line of sight nearly every less-than-30-seconds. So I could, in theory (based on your "reset" philosophy), continue to call distractions and get a new 30-consecutive seconds over and over until I found that short lull in wind and go ahead and make my putt or throw then. I'd contend that's not the spirit of the rules, either.

I've never been of the belief that the RC meant 30 "consecutive" seconds. Kerplunk, That is the thing that is unclear; the rules don't make that point clear. That being said, krupicka's point is equally valid. So, despite the nebulousness of JC's "then throw as promptly as possible", at least a) that stays within the intent; and b) it's not the only time we use the "prompt" descriptor in our rules.

Sounds like a new thread, though.

 

[DESTROYERONE]

Thank you for all the answers, I was just wondering. Teaching tennis for thirty years I would never teach my students any thing that isn't playing the game fair. What that team did I would consider shady. The kicker is it was in the rec division and they have won many tournments in singles and all different divisions. Again thank you for your answers.

 

[kerplunk]

We are all stating our own "interpretations" here. And clearly the RC wants no part of this argument, because they've avoided clarifying it for years. I guess I'll share mine. My struggle with the "reset philosophy" is the player who, like Krupicka says is taking 28-29-30 seconds on every throw, then if/when some "new" distraction enters his throwing area decides he gets to go through this entire routine again. For those who think that is correct, I could contend that on a windy day, I could wait forever. There's gonna be something that blows across my line of sight nearly every less-than-30-seconds. So I could, in theory (based on your "reset" philosophy), continue to call distractions and get a new 30-consecutive seconds over and over until I found that short lull in wind and go ahead and make my putt or throw then. I'd contend that's not the spirit of the rules, either.

I've never been of the belief that the RC meant 30 "consecutive" seconds. Kerplunk, That is the thing that is unclear; the rules don't make that point clear. That being said, krupicka's point is equally valid. So, despite the nebulousness of JC's "then throw as promptly as possible", at least a) that stays within the intent; and b) it's not the only time we use the "prompt" descriptor in our rules.

Sounds like a new thread, though.

We're already discussing it here, let's keep it up.

I'm not stating "my own interpretation ". The rule clearly states that a player is only in violation if they have not thrown within thirty seconds after a distraction is clear. There is no mention of a 30 second clock that should be stopped and restarted. I'm really not trying to be stubborn here, I think the rule as written is very clear, and I truly don't think it can be logically interpreted any other way.

Regarding your windy day scenario, that falls into the category of defining a distraction, not how much time you get after clearance of a distraction. And the behavior you mention would likely result in a courtesy violation. Just because a distraction can't always be perfectly defined doesn't mean it's not pretty clear if you're trying to game the rules by claiming blowing leaves as a distraction. And I'm pretty sure obviously trying to game the rules is a courtesy violation, although I don't know the exact rule.

 

[kerplunk]

Thank you for all the answers, I was just wondering. Teaching tennis for thirty years I would never teach my students any thing that isn't playing the game fair. What that team did I would consider shady. The kicker is it was in the rec division and they have won many tournments in singles and all different divisions. Again thank you for your answers.

Here's a philosophy I use with folks like that: If they have to cheat to win some plastic and merch, and often cheat people they may consider friends and vice versa, they obviously have bigger stuff going on in their life so they can have it.

On a related note, the first thing my tennis teacher in junior high taught us was rules and etiqutte, like only clapping for a good shot and not when the opponent messed up. That still impresses me.

 

[Dan Ensor]

No. I'm saying he doesn't get a new full 30 seconds just because someone walked out in front of him before he threw. I don't think he needs to throw in 2 seconds after that, but I don't think he's entitled to a new 30 seconds either. Just throw promptly once it's safe to do so. I mean, whatever preparations occurred that took up the 28 seconds shouldn't all need to be repeated, no? A new 30 seconds shouldn't be necessary anyway.

My point is that unless the wording of the rule is changed to support the notion of re-setting the clock entirely, the emphasis should be on throwing as promptly as possible once the conditions for the 30-second clock have been met, even if one has to pause for safety concerns on occasion.

It seems here that you want to have your cake and eat it too. IMO, it has to be either the 30 seconds immediately after conditions being met, or 30 continuous seconds of all conditions being met.

I see the 30 seconds to be pointed exclusively at the pre-shot routine, which would be repeated in full after a distraction.

We are all stating our own "interpretations" here. And clearly the RC wants no part of this argument, because they've avoided clarifying it for years. I guess I'll share mine. My struggle with the "reset philosophy" is the player who, like Krupicka says is taking 28-29-30 seconds on every throw, then if/when some "new" distraction enters his throwing area decides he gets to go through this entire routine again. For those who think that is correct, I could contend that on a windy day, I could wait forever. There's gonna be something that blows across my line of sight nearly every less-than-30-seconds. So I could, in theory (based on your "reset" philosophy), continue to call distractions and get a new 30-consecutive seconds over and over until I found that short lull in wind and go ahead and make my putt or throw then. I'd contend that's not the spirit of the rules, either.

I've never been of the belief that the RC meant 30 "consecutive" seconds. Kerplunk, That is the thing that is unclear; the rules don't make that point clear. That being said, krupicka's point is equally valid. So, despite the nebulousness of JC's "then throw as promptly as possible", at least a) that stays within the intent; and b) it's not the only time we use the "prompt" descriptor in our rules.

Sounds like a new thread, though.

There is a dedicated 30 second thread, but who wants to necrobump?

Since there is no definition given, distraction is decided by the group. Even I won't let you pause for the wind.

What uses of "prompt" are there? Moving from hole to hole? Regardless, there's no qualification for time to throw a shot but 30 seconds. I don't see how any other measure could be inserted.

 

[JoakimBL]

30 sec. is pointed at the preshot routine. You have 30 seconds to figure out your shot and your disc selection, take your stance and execute your shot. So in that respect, JC has a point that you do not need all of those 30 seconds again for some minor distraction. But mostly this is a hypothetical anyway I feel, as I don't think it's a common issue that is being abused. People taking a long time for routine easy shots are a pain, but usually they are far from using all of 30 seconds, which is a long time.

 

[d11rok]

As the rule is stated I agree with kerplunk. If any of the four 'and' statements are not met, the rule indirectly states that another 30 seconds are allotted.

The issue with the rule is of the term "distraction". To me, this term can be replaced by the entities described in rule 803.01.B.2- other people or other people's stuff. This eliminates wind, other natural forces, etc that may be abused by the term "distraction".

 

[Dan Ensor]

30 sec. is pointed at the preshot routine. You have 30 seconds to figure out your shot and your disc selection, take your stance and execute your shot. So in that respect, JC has a point that you do not need all of those 30 seconds again for some minor distraction. But mostly this is a hypothetical anyway I feel, as I don't think it's a common issue that is being abused. People taking a long time for routine easy shots are a pain, but usually they are far from using all of 30 seconds, which is a long time.

I've always considered choosing a shot/disc as part of arriving at your lie.

 

[KniceZ]

What is the rationale for the fourth criteria : "The playing area is clear and free of distractions" Is it safety or player concentration? If it's safety, then I agree that "distraction" should be replaced with "other players and spectators". It should not include other peoples stuff or animals or blowing leaves. If it's distractions what about spectators talking, moving about, flash cameras, etc that are not in the "playing area"?

Also maybe the rules should incorporate both ideas - 30 sec to after initial compliance with all four criteria and then 15 sec if after subsequent safety issues are cleared.

 

[Dan Ensor]

What is the rationale for the fourth criteria : "The playing area is clear and free of distractions" Is it safety or player concentration? If it's safety, then I agree that "distraction" should be replaced with "other players and spectators". It should not include other peoples stuff or animals or blowing leaves. If it's distractions what about spectators talking, moving about, flash cameras, etc that are not in the "playing area"?

Also maybe the rules should incorporate both ideas - 30 sec to after initial compliance with all four criteria and then 15 sec if after subsequent safety issues are cleared.

"Clear" means safety; "distraction" is player concentration.

Why is the card's determination not sufficient for what is or is not distracting?