Throw or Drop

[txmxer]

I think this is the correct way to view throw vs not-throw. I'm just not sure I see that her propulsion motion had stopped. In real time, I definitely didn't think it had stopped if we're talking about making rulings on the course.

I am definitely parsing this in fractions of a second for this specific incident and it's definitely just my opinion of what I see. If she had held on for another second (full second) it would have been a clear differentiation between end of propulsion effort, balance recovery and drop.

Without high definition video evidence, I don't think I could make an argument about what happened either way it was called.

It's my opinion of what I see. It's a really close call. Aray or others can see it differently and I'm okay with that. Aray is my DG mentor, so I have 100% respect for him, but I don't think that means I have to defer my own opinion of the incident because he sees it differently.

 

[txmxer]

Personally, if that happened on my card or I was an official....I would ask everyone...did you think the player intended to throw? If not, well there you go. If it is split...benefit of the doubt goes to the player.

That type of thing you can't make a "hard and fast" rule for. Intent is only known by the player; others can only guess at the intent. Look at Kevin Jones 'falling' ACE. He slipped on the tee pad as he was releasing his disc. Did he intend to release it? Or did it just come out as he fell? If there was a "hard and fast" rule that a disc released while falling isn't a throw, then his ace wouldn't have counted (if the rule existed then).

The bad part about intent and falling/slipping....a player can say they didn't intend to throw if the results are bad and say they did intend it if the results are good. This is one of those cases where we have to accept what the player says, unless it is obvious they threw the disc.

RE: KJ ace--yes, definitely a throw. If the disc had left Lisa's hand a fraction of a second earlier (prior to the end of her follow through or propulsion movement) then it's a throw IMO.

 

[Rastnav]

You absolutely cannot say intent is not part of how we define whether it's a throw or not. I'm going to give you the two reductio ad absurdum to clearly show that this has to be the case.

I have a putter in my hand and walk over to my bag and literally drop my putter, by merely opening my hand, next to the bag. This is not a throw. I walk over to the basket and literally drop my putter in, by merely opening my hand. This is a throw.

If you want to claim that this has something to do with my being on the lie for one and not the other, I think this is plainly wrong. Otherwise ever time someone dropped a disc they decided not to throw while standing on the tee pad or their lie, it would be a throw. Conversely, if someone reaches down at the basket and picks up their disc without marking the lie and then drops it in, or drops in while standing somewhere other than their actual lie, that's a stance violation.

But, the idea of "intent at the moment of release" is a red herring, IMO. What matters is whether your overall movement indicates that you were throwing. Having a change of heart mid-swing and subsequently grip locking into the next county doesn't mean you didn't throw. You tried to stop throwing, but you didn't stop. Conversely, stopping the throw and then having the disc dislodge after you clearly stopped throwing isn't a throw.

99.9+% of things that happen where you have the disc in your hand and then don't are clearly and unambiguously on one side of the line or the other. For the sliver of events where they are not, it's always going to be a judgement call and the rule is going to be darn hard to write to remove ambiguity. And it's impossible to write it so that it is a playable rule that removes ambiguity.

 

[PMantle]

Fajkus absolutely got robbed. She abandoned the throw and was simply unable to hold on afterwards. Zero attempt to change position of the discs. I do not see how reasonable minds could differ on that.

 

[biscoe]

Fajkus absolutely got robbed. She abandoned the throw and was simply unable to hold on afterwards. Zero attempt to change position of the discs. I do not see how reasonable minds could differ on that.

I tend to agree on this one.

 

[araytx]

I said I'm NOT falling on my sword. On the course I would accept the call that it was a throw if that's how the card saw it.

BUT, we aren't on the course and the issue is all about timing. The rule is Propulsion AND release with intent. She completed the propulsion effort--her hand came to a stop at the end of her follow through and was actually starting to recover, then she dropped the disc. If the disc comes out a split second earlier, then it is a throw, even if accidental. If the release is not part of the propulsion motion then it is not a throw.

I don't expect anyone to necessarily see that in real time on the course, but, since we have the option to view it, slow it down and see fairly precisely what occurred, we can make a precise assessment as well. It doesn't change anything about what happened.

Ultimately, your point seems to parallel the tuck rule. Any release of the ball (disc) is a throw. But, then you say no, that should have been a fumble. Disc golf doesn't have fumbles, but it is acknowledged a player may drop a disc and it not be considered a throw.

Two quick things before reply - 1) I do think the throw v. non-throw is better than throw v drop. There can be non-throws that are not drops. In fact one of the examples above actually went in the basket -- ironically no one is touching that argument, so I have to take some satisfaction therein. 2) on the "tuck rule" comparison, I am taking the position that in either (both?), if you can't control the throw/release, then you also CAN'T get bailed out by the rule. In both cases I rule in the one that is most penalizing to the player.



Now. It seems the thing you ARE saying is that seeing it on replay gives a better opportunity to see what really happened. So I've re-watched several times-- regular motion, slow-mo, frame by frame, and real time again. What I now see is something I don't think (?) anyone has said. I DO NOT think it has been accurately described yet. It wasn't someone beginning a throw and trying to hold up. That's not what I think at all now. Lisa absolutely was trying to make a throw and then her body didn't cooperate and she couldn't let go for some reason. Then, while her arm was still turning (and here's the debate) the disc finally came out of her hand. I didn't see it as a stop then let go. I saw it as falling out in the continuous motion, but I will understand you seeing it differently.

That's why I think the "intent" part is so hard to judge. Intent only lives in someone's mind. I always tend to err on the side that "throw counts" mostly because the intent on the runup was pretty clearly to make a legal throw (or in the case of no runup, the intent when the motion started was to throw it). Compare that to someone like Dickerson who makes a pretty decent arm swing, but clearly isn't intending that to be his throw, just a routine. It seems a lot easier to judge "intent" on whether the motion was intended to be a throw, as opposed to whether the release of the disc is intentional or not.

That's where I can't decide what I think about Fajkus. I don't see a clear end to her motion, then a drop. I see a release of her disc at the very end of her motion like a total griplock, like she intended not to throw it but maybe did. For me at least, I don't know where to stop it from "super griplock" to "held onto it then dropped it after the fact".

"SUPER" griplock is a more accurate term imho

Personally, if that happened on my card or I was an official....I would ask everyone...did you think the player intended to throw? If not, well there you go. If it is split...benefit of the doubt goes to the player.

That type of thing you can't make a "hard and fast" rule for. Intent is only known by the player; others can only guess at the intent. Look at Kevin Jones 'falling' ACE. He slipped on the tee pad as he was releasing his disc. Did he intend to release it? Or did it just come out as he fell? If there was a "hard and fast" rule that a disc released while falling isn't a throw, then his ace wouldn't have counted (if the rule existed then).

The bad part about intent and falling/slipping....a player can say they didn't intend to throw if the results are bad and say they did intend it if the results are good. This is one of those cases where we have to accept what the player says, unless it is obvious they threw the disc.

That part in red cannot be a basis for a ruling. Just cannot

 

[txmxer]

Two quick things before reply - 1) I do think the throw v. non-throw is better than throw v drop. There can be non-throws that are not drops. In fact one of the examples above actually went in the basket -- ironically no one is touching that argument, so I have to take some satisfaction therein. 2) on the "tuck rule" comparison, I am taking the position that in either (both?), if you can't control the throw/release, then you also CAN'T get bailed out by the rule. In both cases I rule in the one that is most penalizing to the player.



Now. It seems the thing you ARE saying is that seeing it on replay gives a better opportunity to see what really happened. So I've re-watched several times-- regular motion, slow-mo, frame by frame, and real time again. What I now see is something I don't think (?) anyone has said. I DO NOT think it has been accurately described yet. It wasn't someone beginning a throw and trying to hold up. That's not what I think at all now. Lisa absolutely was trying to make a throw and then her body didn't cooperate and she couldn't let go for some reason. Then, while her arm was still turning (and here's the debate) the disc finally came out of her hand. I didn't see it as a stop then let go. I saw it as falling out in the continuous motion, but I will understand you seeing it differently.




"SUPER" griplock is a more accurate term imho




That part in red cannot be a basis for a ruling. Just cannot

While I still stand by my view of the events in this discussion--on the course, making a ruling that it was NOT a throw serves to create more controversy and opportunity for debate of "well, what about this incident that was similar" because it is such a fine line.

That goes back to my previous statement that in real time/real event I wouldn't argue against the call that it was a throw.

 

[robdeforge]

Sounds like you all are invoking "the Tuck Rule"

802.01 does not mention the word "forward". It says "propulsion," "release," "in order to change ...position," and "attempt to change the lie". I personally don't think she was robbed. It is unfortunate, but I think all conditions were met.

You absolutely cannot say intent is not part of how we define whether it's a throw or not. I'm going to give you the two reductio ad absurdum to clearly show that this has to be the case.

As previously pointed out in this thread:
https://www.pdga.com/faq/rules/qa-t...tree-branch-during-my-backswing-knocking-disc

QA-THR-1: My throwing hand bumped a tree branch during my backswing, knocking the disc to the ground, and the disc rolled forward of my lie. Was that a throw?
No. A throw begins when the disc is moving forward in the intended direction. A disc dropped or knocked out before or during a backswing does not count as a throw.

 

[BillFleming]

.a player can say they didn't intend to throw if the results are bad and say they did intend it if the results are good.

That part in red cannot be a basis for a ruling. Just cannot

You are right, but the point I was making was based on posters commenting about INTENT being part of the rule/decision. (Which by the way, intent is not mentioned at all in 802.01 Throw).

If intent is to be considered when determining if something is a throw or not, the only person who can say what the intent was is the player. And, if intent is to be considered, what is to stop a player from saying they didn't intend to throw when the result is bad? Most players take practice swings before throwing....it would be easy to say the disc slipped out and they didn't intend to throw. So, my argument/comment is about why intent isn't part of the rule about throws. I guess I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying.

 

[BillFleming]

I said I'm NOT falling on my sword. On the course I would accept the call that it was a throw if that's how the card saw it.

BUT, we aren't on the course and the issue is all about timing. The rule is Propulsion AND release with intent. She completed the propulsion effort--her hand came to a stop at the end of her follow through and was actually starting to recover, then she dropped the disc. If the disc comes out a split second earlier, then it is a throw, even if accidental. If the release is not part of the propulsion motion then it is not a throw.

I don't expect anyone to necessarily see that in real time on the course, but, since we have the option to view it, slow it down and see fairly precisely what occurred, we can make a precise assessment as well. It doesn't change anything about what happened.

Ultimately, your point seems to parallel the tuck rule. Any release of the ball (disc) is a throw. But, then you say no, that should have been a fumble. Disc golf doesn't have fumbles, but it is acknowledged a player may drop a disc and it not be considered a throw.

Regarding the part you bolded....where in the rules does it say that a throw includes 'release with intent'? 802.01 Throw does not include 'with intent' anywhere.

 

[txmxer]

Regarding the part you bolded....where in the rules does it say that a throw includes 'release with intent'? 802.01 Throw does not include 'with intent' anywhere.

Maybe poor wording, but the prepositional phrase at the end implies intent does it not?

 

[txmxer]

Regarding the part you bolded....where in the rules does it say that a throw includes 'release with intent'? 802.01 Throw does not include 'with intent' anywhere.

At Tobbogan Ricky did something similar to Lisa but held in to the disc throughout. Reset and threw the disc. It was very impressive to me as well as Philo in commentary.

Is there a point between Lisa's throw (throw as determined during the event) and Ricky's non-release where if Ricky had released his disc it would reasonably be viewed as a drop and not a throw?

Alternatively, if Lisa holds on to the disc for another second or two or three seconds and drops it as she is trying to recover her balance that it is clearly a drop and not a throw?

I believe the answer in both cases is yes, the only issue becomes timing.

 

[biscoe]

Regarding the part you bolded....where in the rules does it say that a throw includes 'release with intent'? 802.01 Throw does not include 'with intent' anywhere.

802.01.B- "Each throw that is made as a competitive attempt to change the lie is counted, unless by rule it is disregarded."

bolding mine.

 

[robdeforge]

802.01.B- "Each throw that is made as a competitive attempt to change the lie is counted, unless by rule it is disregarded."

bolding mine.

I'm guessing the bolded is there to allow for returning discs back to a player's bag?

 

[BillFleming]

802.01.B- "Each throw that is made as a competitive attempt to change the lie is counted, unless by rule it is disregarded."

bolding mine.

Yes. I know about that wording. But that does not say "with intent". TXMXR stated the rule includes "release with intent".

The rule is Propulsion AND release with intent.

A follow-up post states;

Maybe poor wording, but the prepositional phrase at the end implies intent does it not?

And that was what I was discussing. Intent is strictly a personal decision....did you intend to make that throw or not? There is almost no way for me to tell if you intended it or not. If a disc leaves a player's hand, we assume they intended it to do so. The rule, as you quoted, then leaves us to decide if it was meant as a competitive attempt. That can be easier to determine. Did the disc go in the direction of the target or in a direction to give the player a better 'next shot'? If yes, then it was a competitive attempt to change the lie.

Intent and a competitive attempt are two different things.

 

[biscoe]

If you are attempting to change the lie that is indicative of intent.

 

[Rastnav]

You absolutely cannot say intent is not part of how we define whether it's a throw or not. I'm going to give you the two reductio ad absurdum to clearly show that this has to be the case.

I have a putter in my hand and walk over to my bag and literally drop my putter, by merely opening my hand, next to the bag. This is not a throw. I walk over to the basket and literally drop my putter in, by merely opening my hand. This is a throw.

If you want to claim that this has something to do with my being on the lie for one and not the other, I think this is plainly wrong. Otherwise ever time someone dropped a disc they decided not to throw while standing on the tee pad or their lie, it would be a throw. Conversely, if someone reaches down at the basket and picks up their disc without marking the lie and then drops it in, or drops in while standing somewhere other than their actual lie, that's a stance violation.

But, the idea of "intent at the moment of release" is a red herring, IMO. What matters is whether your overall movement indicates that you were throwing. Having a change of heart mid-swing and subsequently grip locking into the next county doesn't mean you didn't throw. You tried to stop throwing, but you didn't stop. Conversely, stopping the throw and then having the disc dislodge after you clearly stopped throwing isn't a throw.

99.9+% of things that happen where you have the disc in your hand and then don't are clearly and unambiguously on one side of the line or the other. For the sliver of events where they are not, it's always going to be a judgement call and the rule is going to be darn hard to write to remove ambiguity. And it's impossible to write it so that it is a playable rule that removes ambiguity.

802.01.B- "Each throw that is made as a competitive attempt to change the lie is counted, unless by rule it is disregarded."

bolding mine.

Intent and a competitive attempt are two different things.

Oh, good lord.

The word "competitive" in the two word clause "competitive attempt" is not there by accident, can't be ignored, and absolutely changes the meaning.

In addition we have:

809.03 Practice Throw
A. A practice throw is any throw that is not made as a competitive attempt to change the lie, except for a throw that is made either to set aside an unused disc or to return a disc to a player and that travels less than five meters in the air. A drop is not a practice throw.

The only way to distinguish between competitive attempts to throw and any other movement that results in the disc being displaced is intent.

Indeed, as was already pointed out, intent is explicitly referenced in the rules Q&A about this exact point.

As previously pointed out in this thread:
https://www.pdga.com/faq/rules/qa-t...tree-branch-during-my-backswing-knocking-disc

QA-THR-1: My throwing hand bumped a tree branch during my backswing, knocking the disc to the ground, and the disc rolled forward of my lie. Was that a throw?
No. A throw begins when the disc is moving forward in the intended direction. A disc dropped or knocked out before or during a backswing does not count as a throw.

Given all that, and the fact that you can't just let players say "I didn't intend to throw" as a get out of jail free card, what are we left with. The very obvious answer is that we have to infer intent from the overall totality of the situation. We do this kind of thing all the time and it's unavoidable.

 

[foxdawg10]

Sounds like you all are invoking "the Tuck Rule"

802.01 does not mention the word "forward". It says "propulsion," "release," "in order to change ...position," and "attempt to change the lie". I personally don't think she was robbed. It is unfortunate, but I think all conditions were met.

She dropped the disc so it should not count:

809.03 Practice Throw
Last updated: Friday, December 31, 2021 - 17:57

A practice throw is any throw that is not made as a competitive attempt to change the lie, except for a throw that is made either to set aside an unused disc or to return a disc to a player and that travels less than five meters in the air. A drop is not a practice throw.
A player receives one penalty throw for making a practice throw; the throw itself is disregarded and not counted.

 

[araytx]

She dropped the disc so it should not count:

809.03 Practice Throw
Last updated: Friday, December 31, 2021 - 17:57

A practice throw is any throw that is not made as a competitive attempt to change the lie, except for a throw that is made either to set aside an unused disc or to return a disc to a player and that travels less than five meters in the air. A drop is not a practice throw.
A player receives one penalty throw for making a practice throw; the throw itself is disregarded and not counted.

I know the rule. It's my judgment, however, (in real time) that appears to me to be a throw. My thoughts were based upon my NOT thinking it was a drop.

Nothing against the players, as I would say the same in any situation. To me it's akin to Simon at 6:10 below:

 

[txmxer]

I know the rule. It's my judgment, however, (in real time) that appears to me to be a throw. My thoughts were based upon my NOT thinking it was a drop.

Nothing against the players, as I would say the same in any situation. To me it's akin to Simon at 6:10 below:

Simon's throw is very different than what Lisa did IMO.