Is it legal

[KniceZ]

One round you get a casual group and leaves blowing is considered distracting. Next round winning the tournament is at stake and everyone is looking to play head games.

When things get competitive the rules need to be clear and not left to interpretation.

 

[Dan Ensor]

One round you get a casual group and leaves blowing is considered distracting. Next round winning the tournament is at stake and everyone is looking to play head games.

When things get competitive the rules need to be clear and not left to interpretation.

That's pretty similar to MMA where the ref allows champ matches far more time without action.

I think, in general, a rule as strict as 30 seconds should have a basis in real events. I don't know of any cases of any part of this rule being gamed badly enough to justify them.

Also, there's a rule that you must attempt to maintain pace with the card in front of you, so gaming this rule would put your entire card at risk of penalty.

 

[JoakimBL]

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

Depending on what you mean, maybe. If you mean that your 30 seconds do not start until you have decided, you are wrong, but if you mean that you use the time it takes to arrive at your lie to decide that, obviously that is your prerogative unless that you take longer than reasonable to get to your lie because of it. But obviously, sometimes you cannot do these things before you see your exact lie, and then you in theory only have your 30 seconds to decide what to do and do it. In reality, I think you get a little leeway from your card mates, if you are in a tough spot. Especially if you are not taking excessive time on all other shots. But with a strict interpretation of the rules, you have 30 seconds to tap in from under the basket, to tee off or to throw from deep in a bush with no line out.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Depending on what you mean, maybe. If you mean that your 30 seconds do not start until you have decided, you are wrong, but if you mean that you use the time it takes to arrive at your lie to decide that, obviously that is your prerogative unless that you take longer than reasonable to get to your lie because of it. But obviously, sometimes you cannot do these things before you see your exact lie, and then you in theory only have your 30 seconds to decide what to do and do it. In reality, I think you get a little leeway from your card mates, if you are in a tough spot. Especially if you are not taking excessive time on all other shots. But with a strict interpretation of the rules, you have 30 seconds to tap in from under the basket, to tee off or to throw from deep in a bush with no line out.

I disagree. I feel that's asinine and detracts from the game. If you truly believe what you're saying, all those "leeway giving" card mates should be disqualified.

To have a strict interpretation, there would have to be a strict definition of "arrive at your lie", which I am not finding.

 

[cheesethin]

I disagree. I feel that's asinine and detracts from the game. If you truly believe what you're saying, all those "leeway giving" card mates should be disqualified.

To have a strict interpretation, there would have to be a strict definition of "arrive at your lie", which I am not finding.

Possible reading comprehension failure on my part, what are you disagreeing with?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Dan Ensor]

Possible reading comprehension failure on my part, what are you disagreeing with?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

His punitive definition of "arrive at your lie", or what can happen before arriving at your lie has occured. I don't see anything in the rules that says exactly what that means. In all cases of reasonable play, I've observed the 30 second clock not starting until there has been reasonable time to get the correct disc then arrive at your lie. Only non-golfing argumentativeness, sadism, or competitive advantage has ever resulted in not having time outside of the 30 seconds to choose a line/disc.

 

[Steve West]

... has ever resulted in not having time outside of the 30 seconds to choose a line/disc.

Huh? Isn't that what the 30 seconds is for?

 

[JuanA]

I was just reading through this entire thread, and it's mostly talk about the 30 second rule, but isn't this the meat and potatoes of the question:

Aside from the 30 second rule, is there an issue of fair play? Part of playing doubles is strategy. If you know that your partner shanked his drive, you might play a more conservative drive. If they're parked, you would "go for it"...

This is what I thought when I read the OP, but it seems like it got buried under a different discussion.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Huh? Isn't that what the 30 seconds is for?

The people I play with and myself agree that making the shot/disc choice is part of the reasonable amount of time to arrive at your lie; therefore, preceding the 30 second clock starting.

 

[kerplunk]

I was just reading through this entire thread, and it's mostly talk about the 30 second rule, but isn't this the meat and potatoes of the question:



This is what I thought when I read the OP, but it seems like it got buried under a different discussion.

TLDR: if losing a disc on a blind shot was an issue then one spotter should be sent for the entire card. If the point was just to determine the first player's lie to help the partner choose what/how to throw it was definitely unsportsmanlike and likely illegal. I think that's the general consensus at least.

 

[cheesethin]

His punitive definition of "arrive at your lie"

I don't think his definition is punitive - I think it is exactly what the rule says and means. Though, how people apply it in real life may well appear punitive. From reading these boards, and my limited experience, it doesn't seem that the excessive time rule is called often. But that doesn't change what the rule says or means.

or what can happen before arriving at your lie has occured. I don't see anything in the rules that says exactly what that means.

I think it means exactly what it says. The plain reading of 'to arrive' is 'reach a destination'. It simply means you have reasonable time to travel (from where you threw to where your disc landed). It is one of the four criteria to determine if excessive time has been taken. Choosing disc & line isn't a component part of travelling/arriving.

Only non-golfing argumentativeness, sadism, or competitive advantage has ever resulted in not having time outside of the 30 seconds to choose a line/disc.

I can quite believe that people have had these motives when choosing to call excessive time in real life. But that doesn't change what the rule says or means.

 

[kerplunk]

I don't think his definition is punitive - I think it is exactly what the rule says and means. Though, how people apply it in real life may well appear punitive. From reading these boards, and my limited experience, it doesn't seem that the excessive time rule is called often. But that doesn't change what the rule says or means.




I think it means exactly what it says. The plain reading of 'to arrive' is 'reach a destination'. It simply means you have reasonable time to travel (from where you threw to where your disc landed). It is one of the four criteria to determine if excessive time has been taken. Choosing disc & line isn't a component part of travelling/arriving.



I can quite believe that people have had these motives when choosing to call excessive time in real life. But that doesn't change what the rule says or means.

I mostly agree with you, except the arriving at your lie part (doesn't it say addressing in the rules?). IMO this is the most ambiguous part of the rule, and has been for awhile. Can I stand five feet behind my lie for as long as I want, and 30 seconds only starts when I get in legal throwing position? If at the last second I decide I want to mark my lie instead of using the disc on the ground as a marker, does my time reset? In reality I don't think this ambiguity has much negative impact, but it is annoying for us who like to see things clearly defined whenever possible.

Also, I agree with both Joakim and JC- if a player is standing with one foot behind their lie and takes longer than 30 seconds to throw they are technically in violation of the rules, but you never see it called when a player has a tough lie, at least not in all the coverage I've watched.

Also, does it really matter what the thirty seconds is for? I mean, if I want to use 20 seconds to fart and blow a snot rocket and the last 10 to check my line and throw that's my decision, right?

 

[Dan Ensor]

I mostly agree with you, except the arriving at your lie part (doesn't it say addressing in the rules?). IMO this is the most ambiguous part of the rule, and has been for awhile. Can I stand five feet behind my lie for as long as I want, and 30 seconds only starts when I get in legal throwing position? If at the last second I decide I want to mark my lie instead of using the disc on the ground as a marker, does my time reset? In reality I don't think this ambiguity has much negative impact, but it is annoying for us who like to see things clearly defined whenever possible.

I don't think PDGA has "addressing" anywhere. I believe that's just PGA, and you have to have a club to do it.

No, you definitely can't do anything but attempt to maintain pace with the group ahead of you. And no, I do not think standing there doing nothing is reasonable at all.

And perhaps the fact I need to maintain pace necessitates that I do not throw hastily and take time with more strokes.

Also, I agree with both Joakim and JC- if a player is standing with one foot behind their lie and takes longer than 30 seconds to throw they are technically in violation of the rules, but you never see it called when a player has a tough lie, at least not in all the coverage I've watched.

That fact means the rule should either be changed or interpreted in my fashion.

 

[kerplunk]

I don't think PDGA has "addressing" anywhere. I believe that's just PGA, and you have to have a club to do it.

No, you definitely can't do anything but attempt to maintain pace with the group ahead of you. And no, I do not think standing there doing nothing is reasonable at all.

And perhaps the fact I need to maintain pace necessitates that I do not throw hastily and take time with more strokes.


That fact means the rule should either be changed or interpreted in my fashion.

You're right about addressing, sorry for being lazy and incorrect.

How would you propose changing the rule? In specific wording. And can you clarify your interpretation? I understand you don't think disc and line selection are part of the 30 seconds, but I don't quite get your overall interpretation.

And sorry for calling you JC, I meant Dan. I agree with you that 30 seconds is never called for a tough lie outside of nefarious intentions.

 

[cheesethin]

I mostly agree with you, except the arriving at your lie part (doesn't it say addressing in the rules?).

802.03 Excessive Time

A. A player has taken excessive time if they are present and have not thrown within 30 seconds after:
1. The previous player has thrown; and,
2. They have had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie; and,
3. They are next in the throwing order; and,
4. The playing area is clear and free of distractions.

IMO this is the most ambiguous part of the rule, and has been for awhile.

Personally, part 2 has always seemed pretty unambiguous and straightforward - you get reasonable time to physically get to your disc (and work out what the lie is ie OB or not etc). I have never read it any other way. If you take time out of travelling to your disc to do other things... well that's not part of 'arriving at your disc'. This is the only reading of part 2 that makes sense, if you can do other things as part of 'arriving' then part 2 stops being any kind of restriction at all.

Can I stand five feet behind my lie for as long as I want, and 30 seconds only starts when I get in legal throwing position?

No - because you've had a 'reasonable amount of time' to achieve your task of getting there. Doesn't matter whether you have actually arrived, just whether you have had time to. The rule doesn't say '30s from when you HAVE arrived'

If at the last second I decide I want to mark my lie instead of using the disc on the ground as a marker, does my time reset?

Again no - because you've had a 'reasonable amount of time' to achieve your task of determining the lie. Again, doesn't matter whether you actually have.

 

[Dan Ensor]

You're right about addressing, sorry for being lazy and incorrect.

How would you propose changing the rule? In specific wording. And can you clarify your interpretation? I understand you don't think disc and line selection are part of the 30 seconds, but I don't quite get your overall interpretation.

And sorry for calling you JC, I meant Dan. I agree with you that 30 seconds is never called for a tough lie outside of nefarious intentions.

I'd just add a definition for "arrive at your lie". Something like "presence at the lie having prepared to throw".

You could also go the other way with a definition. Like "mere presence in the area of the disc", but why would you change the game against the observable will of the players?

I feel 30 seconds is a good rule for solely limiting the pre-shot "waggle".

 

[Dan Ensor]

Personally, part 2 has always seemed pretty unambiguous and straightforward - you get reasonable time to physically get to your disc (and work out what the lie is ie OB or not etc). I have never read it any other way. If you take time out of travelling to your disc to do other things... well that's not part of 'arriving at your disc'. This is the only reading of part 2 that makes sense, if you can do other things as part of 'arriving' then part 2 stops being any kind of restriction at all.



No - because you've had a 'reasonable amount of time' to achieve your task of getting there. Doesn't matter whether you have actually arrived, just whether you have had time to. The rule doesn't say '30s from when you HAVE arrived'




Again no - because you've had a 'reasonable amount of time' to achieve your task of determining the lie. Again, doesn't matter whether you actually have.

Since when is walking the only reasonable thing to do for a human? It's unreasonable to take a bathroom break? Or to tie my shoe?

 

[cheesethin]

Since when is walking the only reasonable thing to do for a human? It's unreasonable to take a bathroom break? Or to tie my shoe?

Disc selection and shot selection are whole specific activities onto themselves. People can take a*lot of time just on those two tasks. If you think the rules should be changed to include those activities as part of the pre 30-second allowance that*is one thing.*But it is*not reasonable to suggest that the rule as currently written implies that they are, in any way shape or form.*

Including shot and disc selection as part of 'arriving' renders the excessive time rule fairly pointless as these two activities are big potential time wastes,*and you are giving people free rein to take as long as they want over them. If you feel 30s is not enough time for disc and shot selection and*pre throw waggle,*then better to increase the time allowance.

Talk of tying shoelaces etc feels like nitpicking while ignoring my broader points.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[kerplunk]

Personally, part 2 has always seemed pretty unambiguous and straightforward - you get reasonable time to physically get to your disc (and work out what the lie is ie OB or not etc). I have never read it any other way. If you take time out of travelling to your disc to do other things... well that's not part of 'arriving at your disc'. This is the only reading of part 2 that makes sense, if you can do other things as part of 'arriving' then part 2 stops being any kind of restriction at all.



No - because you've had a 'reasonable amount of time' to achieve your task of getting there. Doesn't matter whether you have actually arrived, just whether you have had time to. The rule doesn't say '30s from when you HAVE arrived'




Again no - because you've had a 'reasonable amount of time' to achieve your task of determining the lie. Again, doesn't matter whether you actually have.

I don't think it's completely unambiguous how long is reasonable, just the word reasonable itself invites a lot of ambiguity, but similar to a distraction I think it's clear what is an unreasonable amount of time. Other than that I agree with your entire post.

 

[cheesethin]

I don't think it's completely unambiguous how long is reasonable, just the word reasonable itself invites a lot of ambiguity, but similar to a distraction I think it's clear what is an unreasonable amount of time. Other than that I agree with your entire post.

Ah, yes. I wasn't referring to 'reasonable' as unambiguous. I was referring to 'time to arrive at the lie' as unambiguously meaning 'travel time'.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk