Sudden Death Options

[DavidSauls]

I'm fairly certain, without looking it up, that warning penalties don't carry over into a tiebreaker.

I was an official following a tiebreaker one time, in which one of the players had been warned and then penalized for footfautig during Round 4. He foot-faulted again on the first hole of the tiebreaker---but it wasn't called, and didn't matter, because he'd effectively lost at that point.

But the question arose in my mind, and I researched it or submitted a question, and was told that the tie-breaker was a new round. Of course, it may not have a 2-minute warning, starter horn, or minimum number of holes. But my understanding is that, generally speaking, it is considered a new round.

 

[araytx]

I'm fairly certain, without looking it up, that warning penalties don't carry over into a tiebreaker.

I was an official following a tiebreaker one time, in which one of the players had been warned and then penalized for footfautig during Round 4. He foot-faulted again on the first hole of the tiebreaker---but it wasn't called, and didn't matter, because he'd effectively lost at that point.

But the question arose in my mind, and I researched it or submitted a question, and was told that the tie-breaker was a new round. Of course, it may not have a 2-minute warning, starter horn, or minimum number of holes. But my understanding is that, generally speaking, it is considered a new round.

I see that it's a new "something" in that context, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a new round. Even in my example that included the coin toss, the warnings wouldn't carry over.

 

[ScottyLove]

Be wary of "Texas Rules" or "Oklahoma Rule"...

I remember playing in the Oklahoma Open with some Texas guys and they REFUSED to give me my scorecard (one for each player) at the end of the round so I could turn it in. He said the "rule" was the top guy listed had to turn them in.

Obviously there is NOTHING in any book about who turns in any card, but I had to follow him to tournament central to ensure my card was turned in. It's my responsibility to make sure my score is correct and turned in... not anyone else.

 

[teemkey]

I'm fairly certain, without looking it up, that warning penalties don't carry over into a tiebreaker.
...

FYI, you're right.

801.01 D
A player shall not receive a warning for a rules violation unless the rule specifically provides for a warning. Warnings do not carry over from one round to the next round or to a playoff.

(my emphasis)

 

[Rondpitt]

Be wary of "Texas Rules" or "Oklahoma Rule"...

I remember playing in the Oklahoma Open with some Texas guys and they REFUSED to give me my scorecard (one for each player) at the end of the round so I could turn it in. He said the "rule" was the top guy listed had to turn them in.

Obviously there is NOTHING in any book about who turns in any card, but I had to follow him to tournament central to ensure my card was turned in. It's my responsibility to make sure my score is correct and turned in... not anyone else.

Yep picking up is supposed to be the TopGuy.
805.02 A The player listed first on the scorecard(s) bears primary responsibility for picking up the group's scorecard(s).

But, as you figured out ... the responsibility changes for who "turns in the card" after the round is over.

805.02G All players are responsible for returning their scorecards within 30 minutes of the completion of a round. The round has been officially completed for all competitors when the last group on the course has completed their final hole and has had, in the Director's opinion, reasonable time to travel from their final hole to tournament headquarters. Failure to turn in the scorecard on time shall result in the assessment of two penalty throws, without a warning, to each player listed on the late scorecard.

Them Texas fellas were holding on to a rules myth, but with no real damage. At least you got it right by following the card(s) to TC.

Just thinking. If individual cards all came in sporadically and not in a bunch (the way they went out) Hmmm. Sure would be a pain in the butt for the scorekeepers in TC to handle updating the board.

A tradition around these parts is to let the person that won the card turn it(them) in. Then we play creepy disc golf stalkers to make sure he(or she) does.

Ron

 

[TAFL]

Your experience may suggest otherwise, but in 31 years of playing disc golf, I've can't recall an occasion, either casual or competitive, where a player who had the opportunity to choose whether to throw first or second chose to throw second.

Hmm. In the 30 years I've been playing, the player with choice almost always picks to throw second. We let somebody else be the wind dummy.

 

[biscoe]

Just like basketball has a new tip-off and doesn't give the ball to who has the next possession, we've always flipped.

We've always flipped as well (and will continue to). In general the individual winning the flip has chosen to go first.

 

[DavidSauls]

We've always flipped as well (and will continue to). In general the individual winning the flip has chosen to go first.

Interesting. I would assume they'd choose to go last; better to know what you need to do, rather than assume what the other guy will do.

Much like baseball games on a neutral field, where there's a coin toss and the winners invariably pick "home". It doesn't matter much, but in the last inning or extra innings, you know whether to play for 1 run, or 4. (A bit less in disc golf, since it's only the drive, and not subsequent shots, involved).

Though it matters vary little. I'd like to see a standard set, just so there's no discussion or decision needed when the time comes. The alternating-honors is a good idea, though most of the tiebreakers I've seen haven't lasted long enough for it to matter much, either.

 

[DanJon]

I always choose to go second.

They can test the wind, etc, and if they hit an early tree I know that I can throw an easy shot and probably win the hole.

 

[araytx]

I see WE (Texans) aren't the only ones who flip when there's a playoff. In fact it could be debated on a playoff that one guys thinks hot round goes first, and the other person might think who was next on the box following the last hole goes first -- which may or may not be the same thing.

I think the competition manual rule needs to standardize it. Obviously it has not been a big deal in a critical situation yet, or else, the RC would have already addressed it.

 

[spinachd]

I like the idea of at least 3 holes, and they should be known in advance of the start of the tourney. If possible they should present some balance of lefty vs righty, technical vs distance, but be as close as possible to each other and if it's a big event they should be spectator-friendly. Bottom line is thought should be given ahead of time.

 

[biscoe]

I think the competition manual rule needs to standardize it. Obviously it has not been a big deal in a critical situation yet, or else, the RC would have already addressed it.

I think TD's are perfectly capable of handling it as they see fit.

 

[JC17393]

I see WE (Texans) aren't the only ones who flip when there's a playoff. In fact it could be debated on a playoff that one guys thinks hot round goes first, and the other person might think who was next on the box following the last hole goes first -- which may or may not be the same thing.

I think the competition manual rule needs to standardize it. Obviously it has not been a big deal in a critical situation yet, or else, the RC would have already addressed it.

Pretty sure the Competition Manual already has standardized determining playing order in 1.9 A. Best score in the previous round goes first unless all previous rounds are tied, then it is up to the TD to use his "consistently applied manner" to break the tie and set the order. That manner could be a coin flip or any number of other alternatives.

That there are regional variations that ignore and likely pre-date the PDGA standard doesn't negate the standard's existence.

 

[araytx]

Pretty sure the Competition Manual already has standardized determining playing order in 1.9 A. Best score in the previous round goes first unless all previous rounds are tied, then it is up to the TD to use his "consistently applied manner" to break the tie and set the order. That manner could be a coin flip or any number of other alternatives.

That there are regional variations that ignore and likely pre-date the PDGA standard doesn't negate the standard's existence.

I'll give you that the Competition Manual has standardized the highlighted part. Your dependence on 1.9A prior to the TD's decision is based upon the assumption that the playoff is a new round -- and that is an interpretation and that's what the Competition Manual should address. Not sure a tie-breaker should be interpreted as a new round; it's a tiebreaker. I don't want someone saying we're "doing it wrong" or lodging a protest because we always flip.

 

[JC17393]

I'll give you that the Competition Manual has standardized the highlighted part. Your dependence on 1.9A prior to the TD's decision is based upon the assumption that the playoff is a new round -- and that is an interpretation and that's what the Competition Manual should address. Not sure a tie-breaker should be interpreted as a new round; it's a tiebreaker. I don't want someone saying we're "doing it wrong" or lodging a protest because we always flip.

801.01 A dictates that if a dispute isn't specifically covered by the rules, then "a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness".

In that case, I'd argue that 801.01 D makes the most sense in determining whether or not a playoff is a new round or not. It specifies that all warnings/penalties (such as courtesy or stance violations) from the previous round do not carry over to a playoff in the same manner that they do not carry over to subsequent round. Why specify that if the playoff is to be treated as an extension of the previous round? And if it is not an extension of the previous round, then what else could it be but a brand new round?

Before a playoff can begin, the players must be finished with the previous round and then be regrouped by the TD. There's no logical way to not consider it a new round.

 

[araytx]

801.01 A dictates that if a dispute isn't specifically covered by the rules, then "a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness".

In that case, I'd argue that 801.01 D makes the most sense in determining whether or not a playoff is a new round or not. It specifies that all warnings/penalties (such as courtesy or stance violations) from the previous round do not carry over to a playoff in the same manner that they do not carry over to subsequent round. Why specify that if the playoff is to be treated as an extension of the previous round? And if it is not an extension of the previous round, then what else could it be but a brand new round?

Before a playoff can begin, the players must be finished with the previous round and then be regrouped by the TD. There's no logical way to not consider it a new round.

Sure there is. The sudden death tie-breaker has several elements that a round does not have. For example, it's not a set number of holes, if a specialty loop is used the prescribed order of holes is different, playoffs end on a walk-off without a player holing out, all the players or a prescribed number of players is not the same as a round, scores for each player do not count at all, if the playoff lasts 13 holes or more it does not receive ratings, etc. In fact the very rule book section you used leads me to think it's not a round. In 801.01D it says "... [w]arnings do not carry over from one round to the next round or to a playoff [my emphasis]. All of those things would tell me it's NOT a round at all.

It's analogous to the NCAA football tie-breaker which is not the same as another quarter, or penalty kicks in soccer. NCAA football's tiebreaker has no clock, soccer's PK shootout has no score. So you can argue that point JC, with good reason and justification. But you're saying it's clear and it's not. There are just as many reasons the other way. You asked what is it if not a new round -- well, it's just a tie-breaker. The only purpose it serves is to determine, of the seven players whose 4-round total ended up at 198 and lowest for the tournament, which one gets to be first place with a 198 and which six get to be tied for second with a 198.

 

[ERicJ]

Of course a playoff is considered a new round. If it wasn't, then the zillion rules that apply to a "round" don't apply to a "playoff" and you have chaos.

 

[biscoe]

The zillion rules apply to the game of disc golf in general, but there are rules that do not apply in a playoff that do apply in a round (see last araytx post).
Not a round for scoring purposes either.
Nor does one make a "round" of the course.
I actually see almost no reason to think of it as a round.

 

[araytx]

Of course a playoff is considered a new round. If it wasn't, then the zillion rules that apply to a "round" don't apply to a "playoff" and you have chaos.

I disagree, E. There are some rules that apply to a playoff tiebreaker that are the same as the rounds, and some rules that don't. Otherwise the TD wouldn't be having a meeting with the players involved before the playoff tiebreaker to explain the rules -- just like the referee does before the NCAA football tiebreaker or the soccer tiebreaker. Some of the rules of the rounds apply, some don't. And other specialty rules apply during the playoff tiebreaker that didn't apply during the rounds.

 

[ERicJ]

Since the rulebook doesn't actually define a "round" it's probably pointless to argue it. But do a search for "round" on the rulebook PDF and see how many rules are specific to a "round". If you say a playoff is NOT a round then a bunch of rules don't apply and it's not the same game anymore.