Rules Changes for 2018

[mizunodave]

Side note, the fact that officials can't use photo evidence is silly to me when everyone has a camera phone. It's so much easier as a TD when making a call to be able to use the photo, but we can't.

I disagree. For one, if the infraction was so close 4 people couldn't tell then let it go in the player's favor is fine. Secondly, pace of play. You want to stop play to get Jomez to rewind his camera to the right spot, or go through the gallery to see if anyone snapped a photo at the perfect instant? What about groups that aren't being filmed or followed, they get to get away with infractions since there won't be photo evidence? Keep it as is, no photo evidence, make a quick call and move on imo.

 

[krupicka]

Most of the time when I am brought a photo, I ask them to put the phone away and describe the issue. I then explain the applicable rules and then tell them to figure it out. If they can't, then come back. Usually this exchange is enough and the photo wasn't necessary.

 

[_MTL_]

I disagree. For one, if the infraction was so close 4 people couldn't tell then let it go in the player's favor is fine. Secondly, pace of play. You want to stop play to get Jomez to rewind his camera to the right spot, or go through the gallery to see if anyone snapped a photo at the perfect instant? What about groups that aren't being filmed or followed, they get to get away with infractions since there won't be photo evidence? Keep it as is, no photo evidence, make a quick call and move on imo.

Note - i was talking about photo evidence, not video evidence.

I also referenced a cell phone camera, not the media coverage. One person in a group of 4 at the smallest C tier in the world will have a phone with a camera.

 

[JC17393]

Photos can be manipulated though. And I don't mean photoshopping. I mean taken at an angle that can bias the viewer toward one call or another. Just as an example...if I think a disc near the line is in, I might take a photo of it from an angle that makes it appear that way. But someone else in the group who thinks it's out can take a photo from an angle that makes it appear out. Which photo should the TD make his ruling from?

While there are certainly situations where angle won't matter, and the answer is obvious no matter who takes the photo or where they take it from. But it's difficult to write a rule that allows for that but disallows photos that do have a bias. Better IMO to disallow them all together than to allow for biased or manipulated photos to be used to make a call.

 

[cwild]

 

[_MTL_]

Photos can be manipulated though. And I don't mean photoshopping. I mean taken at an angle that can bias the viewer toward one call or another. Just as an example...if I think a disc near the line is in, I might take a photo of it from an angle that makes it appear that way. But someone else in the group who thinks it's out can take a photo from an angle that makes it appear out. Which photo should the TD make his ruling from?

While there are certainly situations where angle won't matter, and the answer is obvious no matter who takes the photo or where they take it from. But it's difficult to write a rule that allows for that but disallows photos that do have a bias. Better IMO to disallow them all together than to allow for biased or manipulated photos to be used to make a call.

I'm certainly more against it than I am for it. However, if that changed, it wouldn't be upset.

 

[Karl]

Call me a skeptic but any situation / instance that is that flagrant (i.e. MTL's 60-70% NG on jump putts that can't readily been seen in real-time) IMO warrants a BIG time looking into by the RC. And then make any rule changes needed to get rid any situations that would facilitate such.
Rules need to be simple...even at the expense of perhaps majorly changing our sport form what we're used to...because we all are NOT playing the same game.

 

[mizunodave]

Can you provide an example of a situation where someone could gain a significant advantage that's too close to call by cardmates?

FWIW, I come from the perspective of wanting us to avoid taking any of this too seriously or legislating the game to death. We're just throwing frisbees in the woods, the fewer rules the better imo.

 

[tampora]

I guess we now have a scenario in which a player can card a circle-2 or penalty-2. Does that player win the ace pot for that throw?

Depending on your rules for scorecard circles, you could already be scoring circle 2's.

Joe foot faults on the teebox and gets a warning and rethrow.
Joe foot faults again on the teebox and gets a penalty stroke and a rethrow.
Joe aces for a circle 2.

 

[F.Luke]

My take on a few of the new rules:

Eliminating foot fault warning and allowing player to call themselves: good idea
Eliminating rethrow for foot fault: bad idea
Redefining the lie: terrible idea

 

[teemkey]

From the new rule summary:

The consensual interference rule (formerly 804.03.G) has been removed.

So now we let another player's disc roll into water (off a cliff, into poison oak, etc) even if the player is yelling "somebody stop my disc!"

Ummm, why?

 

[sidewinder22]

Depending on your rules for scorecard circles, you could already be scoring circle 2's.

Joe foot faults on the teebox and gets a warning and rethrow.
Joe foot faults again on the teebox and gets a penalty stroke and a rethrow.
Joe aces for a circle 2.

Yep, and the new rule eliminates the possibility of a cubby ace counting toward the ace pot.

 

[sidewinder22]

Call me a skeptic but any situation / instance that is that flagrant (i.e. MTL's 60-70% NG on jump putts that can't readily been seen in real-time) IMO warrants a BIG time looking into by the RC. And then make any rule changes needed to get rid any situations that would facilitate such.
Rules need to be simple...even at the expense of perhaps majorly changing our sport form what we're used to...because we all are NOT playing the same game.

B. Players are expected to call a violation when one has clearly occurred. Calls must be made promptly.

If you need to review photo evidence to make a call, then a violation has not clearly or flagrantly occurred, and reviewing evidence would not qualify as prompt or immediate. The application of rules seems pretty simple and clear to me. I thought this was supposed to be a gentleman's game that is largely self-officiated, but it instead appears as though some want to be big brother and to skeptically officiate against the other players.

I would think that a clear stance violation that is observed in real time boils down to one of three things, either 1. a slip/fall- which is most likely already a bad shot and probably doesn't need to be penalized, or 2. ignorance of their violation - which a penalty would be appropriate along with some education, or 3. a blatant intention to break the rule/cheat which should be subject to DQ, not a stroke penalty.

These unclear micro-violations that need photo evidence to see are probably rarely ever intended to cheat as they are at least making it hard to clearly call. I'd imagine that if football leagues reviewed every catch going to the ground they would see a similarly large number of micro-bobbles or trappings that could be overruled. The only way they could micro-manage the rules to make it clear without having to review photos would be that you can't catch the ball while going to the ground. Talk about the No Fun League! :thmbdown:

 

[_MTL_]

From the new rule summary:


So now we let another player's disc roll into water (off a cliff, into poison oak, etc) even if the player is yelling "somebody stop my disc!"

Ummm, why?

This rule was one of the worst rule changes in quite some time, in my opinion. Part of the difficulty and challenge of pins on cliffs, on edges of lakes, etc, was the concern of losing a disc.

If you had a 40 foot putt to a basket with water behind it, just ask someone to stand behind it and catch it. Then if you miss, whatever, it's the same penalty as OB and you have your disc. This takes a lot of the challenge and risk reward out of these putts.

There are certainly going to be situations where it will not be fun to watch a competitor's disc roll / fly into one of the situations, but it's just something that needed to be updated.

 

[teemkey]

This rule was one of the worst rule changes in quite some time, in my opinion. Part of the difficulty and challenge of pins on cliffs, on edges of lakes, etc, was the concern of losing a disc.

If you had a 40 foot putt to a basket with water behind it, just ask someone to stand behind it and catch it. Then if you miss, whatever, it's the same penalty as OB and you have your disc. This takes a lot of the challenge and risk reward out of these putts.

There are certainly going to be situations where it will not be fun to watch a competitor's disc roll / fly into one of the situations, but it's just something that needed to be updated.

The effect on the scorecard is the same, whether the disc is saved or lost. What changes is a negative impact on the speed of play as the player (card?) attempts to recover the disc.

 

[_MTL_]

The effect on the scorecard is the same, whether the disc is saved or lost. What changes is a negative impact on the speed of play as the player (card?) attempts to recover the disc.

It takes away the challenge and concern of losing the disc. Losing a disc, especially one you putt with, is highly impactful. So much so that on the current rule of re-throws after stance violations, you are allowed to retrieve when inside the circle.

 

[teemkey]

It takes away the challenge and concern of losing the disc. Losing a disc, especially one you putt with, is highly impactful. So much so that on the current rule of re-throws after stance violations, you are allowed to retrieve when inside the circle.

Only if you think you won't be able to retrieve the disc. Do you think that's realistic?

I suppose we're talking about whether the other members of the card will or won't allow the player to fish out the disc; or, at major tournaments, there won't be a volunteer standing by with a golden retriever or equivalent on holes with a high risk of water-bound putts.

 

[_MTL_]

Only if you think you won't be able to retrieve the disc. Do you think that's realistic?

No. That's too subjective.

 

[araytx]

I disagree. For one, if the infraction was so close 4 people couldn't tell then let it go in the player's favor is fine. Secondly, pace of play. You want to stop play to get Jomez to rewind his camera to the right spot, or go through the gallery to see if anyone snapped a photo at the perfect instant? What about groups that aren't being filmed or followed, they get to get away with infractions since there won't be photo evidence? Keep it as is, no photo evidence, make a quick call and move on imo.

Assuming that the players really are ruling that it's too close to call. I've had situations where players would say, I can't tell, you call it, even times when the other 2 on the card both said it. Then I called it and we finished the hole and went to the next. A few holes later while moving to the next hole, one says, I knew that was out, but I didn't want to be the one to call it.

Depending on your rules for scorecard circles, you could already be scoring circle 2's.

Joe foot faults on the teebox and gets a warning and rethrow.
Joe foot faults again on the teebox and gets a penalty stroke and a rethrow.
Joe aces for a circle 2.

How is that a 2 under current rules? I think 3.

Yep, and the new rule eliminates the possibility of a cubby ace counting toward the ace pot.

Simplifies things ...

 

[sidewinder22]

How is that a 2 under current rules? I think 3.

The current 2017 rules it would be a 2.

The first throw with foot fault warning is not counted and requires re-throw.
The second throw with foot fault is not counted but is one stroke plus re-throw.
The third throw is an Ace, plus the stroke penalty.
Score = circle 2.