Rules Changes for 2018

[roblee]

At the August PDGA Board Meeting the Rules Committee proposed what was described as "..one of the highest volume of changes since the inception of PDGA rules." The BOD voted to pre- approve all but 3 of the proposed rules. Those 3 were returned to the Rules Committee for reconsideration. I suspect there will be another vote by year's end. Maybe other was at September meeting.

I've found past changes to be well thought out to provide clarification, simplification, and faster play. There is plenty of discussion on this forum so I assume the Rules Committee and BOD have been well alerted to what changes the vocal players desire.

I've also wondered why not preview changes to the membership before a BOD vote. If the vote is still out this may be a good time for some discussion and some thoughtful input to assist our elected officials .

 

[krupicka]

Vote is done already.

 

[Nova P]

I can't stand the tension.

 

[teemkey]

So, what do you think? Shall "shall" be stricken?

 

[hellbound]

From the July Meeting

Committee
Reports:
Rules – Shawn Sinclair provided an update on the rules revisions. The rules committee will have
proposed revisions to the Board for review NLT July 15, 2017. Contains a total of 48 items. The Board
will vote on rule changes in Aug 2017

From Aug Meeting
Board voting on major rules revisions – Sinclair
Shawn Sinclair facilitated a discussion on the upcoming rules revision. He opened by stating that this was a very large rules revision that has been two years in the making. He lauded the outstanding effort and commitment of our volunteer members who serve on the RulesCommittee for their well thought out and meticulous work. He noted that this is one of the highest volume of changes since the inception of PDGA
rules. Several major changes were presented to the Board for consider
ation and a vote. Lengthy discussion ensured. All but three rules received acceptance from the Board, so a motion was made to send the three undecided rules back to the Competition Committee with comments and concerns so they can reconsider
these rules. Sinclair requested a motion to pre-approve all but the three rules that were left undecided.

From the last two meetings......Sounds like next years going to be interesting rules wise.

 

[mizunodave]

When will we know what these rules are? are they the same that were leaked I want to say a year ago?

 

[hellbound]

When will we know what these rules are? are they the same that were leaked I want to say a year ago?

Good Question

 

[ToddL]

When will we know what these rules are? are they the same that were leaked I want to say a year ago?

I'd imagine the leak was the starting point. IIRC, the leaked document was every idea that the rules committee came up with. Most of those were getting shot down in the committee and were never passed onto the board.

 

[ericb45696]

https://i.imgur.com/g47TTxB.jpg

 

[mizunodave]

Someone on reddit made a good point about abusing this rule, teeing off then making a 400' foot fault to drop it in the basket for a penalty 3. Curious to see what language there is to prevent this.

 

[JC17393]

Someone on reddit made a good point about abusing this rule, teeing off then making a 400' foot fault to drop it in the basket for a penalty 3. Curious to see what language there is to prevent this.

Competition Manual 3.3.B.5 would be the prevention, same as it is now for willfully attempting to circumvent the rules of play. Deliberately breaking a rule (by foot faulting) to gain an advantage should result in disqualification.

That said, I like the elimination of the warning for stance violations. I HATE the idea of not re-throwing on a stance violation. If the result of the throw from the illegal stance now counts, what happens if the disc lands OB, a double penalty? One for the stance violation and one for OB? Seems overly harsh.

Not so keen on the 20X30cm box as the "lie" either. Seems like it makes it harder to discern if one is on the lie even more. Though it does open up a market place for lie markers...a 20X30cm piece of cloth or plastic that one can place on the ground behind the marker disc (or in lieu of). If you step on the lie marker, you're legal.

 

[Karl]

Just one can of worms to a different can :| . But I guess they (the RC) are trying...although taking baby steps instead of incurring the wrath of the public to really change (in a good way) the problem.

 

[Nova P]

The hell of it is, I just know that people are still going to be big babies about being called on a foot fault, despite having this much larger area to (fail) to touch with a supporting point.

 

[Steve West]

Just one can of worms to a different can :| . But I guess they (the RC) are trying...although taking baby steps instead of incurring the wrath of the public to really change (in a good way) the problem.

What would be the really change in a good way?

 

[JC17393]

The hell of it is, I just know that people are still going to be big babies about being called on a foot fault, despite having this much larger area to (fail) to touch with a supporting point.

Of course they are. I don't think making the lie area bigger makes it any easier to hit consistently for people who aren't putting all that much effort into hitting it in the first place. And now it carries a penalty right from the get-go, so I imagine more players will be more attentive toward their opponents' footwork since there's no longer the stigma of giving an opponent a free mulligan on the first violation.

 

[JC17393]

What would be the really change in a good way?

Knowing Karl...forced stand and deliver on every lie.

 

[BrotherDave]

The hell of it is, I just know that people are still going to be big babies about being called on a foot fault, despite having this much larger area to (fail) to touch with a supporting point.

This is great IMO. Way more intuitive.

Here's how I explained the rule to new players before:
"Okay, so you have to have one supporting point of contact on the line of play, which is an imaginary line of immeasurable width that bisects your previously thrown disc/mini, in line with the center of the target." New player: :|

The new rule:
"Okay, so you have to be touching behind your disc with the disc between you and the target." New player: :thmbup:

 

[JoakimBL]

I really dislike that the throw counts. I guess that it's because some players would think it "unfair" for the offender to get to rethrow a bad throw, but wouldn't the optional rethrow negate the stance violation penalty anyway, so the player has "free" rethrow on a bad throw anyway? Anyway, I think it's much worse anyway to have an "illegal" good throw count, than to get a to rethrow a bad one.

 

[uncle pennybags]

I really wish that the OB rule would be worded more like - If any part of your disc is touching the OB line, then the disc is OB.

I think that would really cut down on the debate on a disc being in on not since it's touching a piece of grass or some such crap.

 

[mgamache8]

I really wish that the OB rule would be worded more like - If any part of your disc is touching the OB line, then the disc is OB.

I think that would really cut down on the debate on a disc being in on not since it's touching a piece of grass or some such crap.

But then there's the debate if the disc is barely touching the painted line