Throw or Drop

[Doofenshmirtz]

Getting players to know rules that don't seem intuitive is difficult. An element of inferring intent is a worthy trade-off, compared to making a long list of natural and inconsequential actions illegal.

Also, we're self-officiated. The possible thrower is part of the group and can weigh in. A lot of times they'll make an immediate, reflexive (and therefore honest) comment about what happened.

The problem (albeit, perhaps not a big on in this case) is that "intuitive" is subjective. Also, keep in mind that this is not a discussion of legal and illegal, i.e., not a discussion of penalties (although some, whom I won't mention, apparently think the score in disc golf is a tally of penalties assessed). So there is no long list of illegal things, just the definition of what constitutes a throw. I suggest that what should be striven for is not what people find intuitive or, at least, intuitiveness should not be the goal, but instead the rule should be easy to assess, like "once the thrower has taken a stance, release of the disc constitutes a throw."

I don't suggest that such a rule is necessary or that there is some rash of incidents warranting any change. To me, it's just a challenge as to how the rule might be made more elegant and easy to interpret. If players understand that release of a disc after taking a stance constitutes a throw and, even for disc golfers, that seems pretty easy to understand, then there should be no complaint by anyone who gets in a stance and releases their disc. The intent component is fine, but unnecessary and without benefit in my view.

 

[JC17393]

The problem (albeit, perhaps not a big on in this case) is that "intuitive" is subjective. Also, keep in mind that this is not a discussion of legal and illegal, i.e., not a discussion of penalties (although some, whom I won't mention, apparently think the score in disc golf is a tally of penalties assessed). So there is no long list of illegal things, just the definition of what constitutes a throw. I suggest that what should be striven for is not what people find intuitive or, at least, intuitiveness should not be the goal, but instead the rule should be easy to assess, like "once the thrower has taken a stance, release of the disc constitutes a throw."

I don't suggest that such a rule is necessary or that there is some rash of incidents warranting any change. To me, it's just a challenge as to how the rule might be made more elegant and easy to interpret. If players understand that release of a disc after taking a stance constitutes a throw and, even for disc golfers, that seems pretty easy to understand, then there should be no complaint by anyone who gets in a stance and releases their disc. The intent component is fine, but unnecessary and without benefit in my view.

What you suggest makes sense, but then the task isn't defining "throw", it's defining "stance". Does it require contact with the lie? Am I in my stance if I'm 8 feet behind my marker lining up to run up? Does contact with the teeing area/tee pad make a difference? Can I stand on the pad waiting for the fairway to clear without being considered in my stance?

Not that it wouldn't be a worthwhile endeavor to define these things, but it sure seems like making things super complicated for the sake of clarity when 99% of the time the existing rules and their reliance on intuition and player judgment does the job perfectly well.

 

[Karl]

Probably 99.99% of the time! But I'm leaning towards what Doof stated / espouses. Even though one usually can't draw up rules that cover 100% of all scenarios, it's bad when there are "holes" in existing rules - that 'interpretation' is needed. To cover these holes, sometimes rules have to be a wee bit voluminous. Nobody likes this but it may be needed to 'have a complete game'.
The more 'holes' that are found - however small - the more chances we have to "fill them"...whenever....

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

What you suggest makes sense, but then the task isn't defining "throw", it's defining "stance". Does it require contact with the lie?

This is true, but that requires only a small modification to 802.07 or a another sentence to the throw rule to the effect of "A player is considered to be in his stance for the purposes of this rule whenever the player has one supporting point in contact with the lie."

 

[krupicka]

If players understand that release of a disc after taking a stance constitutes a throw and, even for disc golfers, that seems pretty easy to understand, then there should be no complaint by anyone who gets in a stance and releases their disc. The intent component is fine, but unnecessary and without benefit in my view.

You would also need to address the release of a disc when not in a stance. (e.g. missed lie)

 

[sidewinder22]

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

You would also need to address the release of a disc when not in a stance. (e.g. missed lie)

I think that is already taken care of. Either it is a stance violation or a practice throw or neither. I haven't gone back to look at these rules, so I may be wrong, but that doesn't really seem like a problem. Got any troublesome examples?

 

[d11rok]

If the mini is down in front of the previously thrown disc, and then said disc is picked up, in order for the foot to be on the lie it would practically have to be on the disc getting picked up. You must be rather flexible.
Your argument is another example of someone trying to find a ridiculous "counter" to make the rules more complex than they need to be.

The answer to the op is that the action in question is to be considered either a throw, or a practice throw. Rule accordingly.

Also, there are many using the term "drop" as if it's defined in the rulebook. It is not, so up for interpretation. However, it would be a stretch to consider a projectile that traveled a significant distance in any direction as a "drop" in any common definition of the word.

So when you mark your lie for a putt, pick up the disc you threw from the tee (while on your lie) and set it on/in front of your marker, that is a throw?

Player on the lie? Check
Disc went forward? Check

Definitely not a throw.

 

[LateWesternSky]

If the mini is down in front of the previously thrown disc, and then said disc is picked up, in order for the foot to be on the lie it would practically have to be on the disc getting picked up. You must be rather flexible.
Your argument is another example of someone trying to find a ridiculous "counter" to make the rules more complex than they need to be.

The answer to the op is that the action in question is to be considered either a throw, or a practice throw. Rule accordingly.

Also, there are many using the term "drop" as if it's defined in the rulebook. It is not, so up for interpretation. However, it would be a stretch to consider a projectile that traveled a significant distance in any direction as a "drop" in any common definition of the word.

First, discs are a little over 20 cm and the lie goes 30 cm back from the marker so you can easily be on your lie and pick up a disc at the same time.

Second, you can pick up your disc and put your foot on your lie before "dropping" said disc.

Third, the lie has nothing to do with it. All the people saying it counts as a throw should be arguing that it also counts as a misplay if you aren't on your lie.

I'm not interpreting the op as saying the disc flies a significant distance. If it does, of course it's a throw. But if it falls farther down than it travels forward, I wouldn't call it a throw.

 

[DavidSauls]

Also, there are many using the term "drop" as if it's defined in the rulebook. It is not, so up for interpretation. However, it would be a stretch to consider a projectile that traveled a significant distance in any direction as a "drop" in any common definition of the word.

What about a drop-&-roll? I've dropped some discs that traveled considerable distances, while enduring as much vocabulary as I could muster in my commands to stop.

 

[cheesethin]

Also, there are many using the term "drop" as if it's defined in the rulebook. It is not, so up for interpretation.

I think the rules around what is a throw are actually written quite cleverly. We don't need to define what a drop is, all we need to have is a definition of what a throw is (802.01), and what to do with throws. And then anything that does not meet that definition is a non-throw, and is ignored. Therefore there is no need to interpret what a drop is, we just need to decide if an action is deemed a throw or a non-throw. In terms of how the logic & definitions in the rules are structured, calling it a drop is more of a proxy for calling it not-a-throw.

A throw is defined in 802.01 as

A throw is the propulsion and release of a disc in order to change its position.

That's it, there is not a lot to it. It has three criteria; propulsion, release, and an intention/purpose to change its position. Anything that doesn't meet these criteria is not a throw by definition.

Then the rules lay out how to score/treat throws in different circumstances:
If the throw is made as a competitive attempt to change the lie - score one stroke (802.01 second sentence).
If the throw is made to set aside a disc or return a disc to a player AND it travels less than 5m - no score added (809.03).
If the throw is neither of the above - score one penalty stroke (809.03)

And if an action doesn't meet the definition of a throw, then because the rules don't give us any specific instruction what to do - we do nothing.

This means we avoid entirely the need to come up with criteria like

However, it would be a stretch to consider a projectile that traveled a significant distance in any direction as a "drop" in any common definition of the word.

or as others have suggested, criteria like one foot on the lie etc.

Now, interestingly, 809.03 uses the word drop

A drop is not a practice throw.

but doesn't go on to define what a drop is. I'm Ok with this because 1, my points above, we don't need to define it. And 2, I think the use of the word drop here is just useful for flagging up to people to not incorrectly assume anything that isn't a 'proper throw' is classified as a practice throw. I've seen people on forums reach for practice throw as a general catch-all for any kind of thing that doesn't seem to fit else where. So I think it is useful for reminding people of the concept of a drop, without the necessity of teasing out a definition.

PS.

The answer to the op is that the action in question is to be considered either a throw, or a practice throw. Rule accordingly.

The un-intentionality in the original scenario makes it a non-throw (drop). But the card has to make that judgement call.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

This, to me, has been the most logically thought out post in the thread.

I think the rules around what is a throw are actually written quite cleverly. We don't need to define what a drop is, all we need to have is a definition of what a throw is (802.01), and what to do with throws. And then anything that does not meet that definition is a non-throw, and is ignored. Therefore there is no need to interpret what a drop is, we just need to decide if an action is deemed a throw or a non-throw. In terms of how the logic & definitions in the rules are structured, calling it a drop is more of a proxy for calling it not-a-throw.

A throw is defined in 802.01 as

That's it, there is not a lot to it. It has three criteria; propulsion, release, and an intention/purpose to change its position. Anything that doesn't meet these criteria is not a throw by definition.

Then the rules lay out how to score/treat throws in different circumstances:
If the throw is made as a competitive attempt to change the lie - score one stroke (802.01 second sentence).
If the throw is made to set aside a disc or return a disc to a player AND it travels less than 5m - no score added (809.03).
If the throw is neither of the above - score one penalty stroke (809.03)

And if an action doesn't meet the definition of a throw, then because the rules don't give us any specific instruction what to do - we do nothing.

This means we avoid entirely the need to come up with criteria like

or as others have suggested, criteria like one foot on the lie etc.

Now, interestingly, 809.03 uses the word drop but doesn't go on to define what a drop is. I'm Ok with this because 1, my points above, we don't need to define it. And 2, I think the use of the word drop here is just useful for flagging up to people to not incorrectly assume anything that isn't a 'proper throw' is classified as a practice throw. I've seen people on forums reach for practice throw as a general catch-all for any kind of thing that doesn't seem to fit else where. So I think it is useful for reminding people of the concept of a drop, without the necessity of teasing out a definition.

PS.

The un-intentionality in the original scenario makes it a non-throw (drop). But the card has to make that judgement call.

 

[Jay Dub]

Has anyone ever been in a group in a PDGA event and had the group call something like this a throw against the declaration of the thrower that it was not? Just curious...

I wasn't on the card but at the tournament back in the old days when I played tournaments. A golfer was setting up for a straddle putt, dropped his disc on purpose so he could use both hands to adjust his pants legs. Another player on the card called it a stroke. At that time there was no rule allowing anything like that drop so even though everyone there knew the intent of the player who dropped the disc they was forced to add the stroke to their score.

I believe this happened in a Dayton, OH PDGA sanctioned tournament. Sorry I can't recall the names of the people involved but I've always believed this had a lot to do with the rule being adjusted to allow for such a circumstance.

 

[DavidSauls]

I wasn't on the card but at the tournament back in the old days when I played tournaments. A golfer was setting up for a straddle putt, dropped his disc on purpose so he could use both hands to adjust his pants legs. Another player on the card called it a stroke. At that time there was no rule allowing anything like that drop so even though everyone there knew the intent of the player who dropped the disc they was forced to add the stroke to their score.

I believe this happened in a Dayton, OH PDGA sanctioned tournament. Sorry I can't recall the names of the people involved but I've always believed this had a lot to do with the rule being adjusted to allow for such a circumstance.

Yeah, I was at a tournament before the Q&A became part of the rules, where a guy just standing on a tee and pondering the big downhill shot, dropped his disc and it rolled off the tee and down the hill into a terrible lie. His group called it a throw and made him play it. I played with him in a later round, and he was still complaining about it.

I dropped my bag on a hillside once and about a dozen discs escaped from it and rolled away. I wondered if the group would hit me with a dozen practice throws, but they were more sympathetic.

 

[riltim]

You don't have to be playing very long to figure out what is intentionally a throw and what is part of a warm up routine. Anyone who would stroke you for a warmup routine drop would be bending the rules in their favor.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I dropped my bag on a hillside once and about a dozen discs escaped from it and rolled away. I wondered if the group would hit me with a dozen practice throws, but they were more sympathetic.

*makes a strong arguement for the minimalist bag*

 

[cheesethin]

...Player is lining up a forehand shot and they are pumping the disc forwards and backwards a few times assessing their line, before they take their shot. Due to a loose grip the disc slips unintentionally out of their hand and flies forward a short distance...

So this actually happened to a guy on my card this weekend. Pretty much identical to the hypothetical except it was a backhand and he only did one pre-throw pump, and that's when the disc flew forward out of his hand (about 10-15m). Having had this discussion here made the process a lot easier for me.

My judgement call was that it was unintentional on his part, supported by two things.
One - on every previous tee-shot he had executed exactly one, short, sharp, pre-throw forward pump. I'd noticed this because on the first few holes of the round I had been fooled by his pre-throw pump, and had turned to watch the disc fly. He did this every hole.
Two - The look of total horror on his face and the way his whole body froze (no follow through), as the disc flew out of his hand.

I was convinced it was unintentional so therefore not a throw. The other two guys on the card had already decided not to penalize the thrower before I got back to them so everyone was in agreement. I'd been spotting for our throws a bit down the fairway, so I saw the action, but didn't hear the initial discussion.

 

[BrotherDave]

Lisa Fajkus gets robbed at 26th minute:

No forward propulsion, not a throw.

 

[txmxer]

Lisa Fajkus gets robbed at 26th minute:

No forward propulsion, not a throw.

I agree, not a throw. If the disc had been released as she fell, I'd say you have to call it a throw. She had completed the throwing motion and held on to the disc IMO, then it fell out as she tried to recover her balance. It happened quick, but definitely not a throw.

We saw Ricky do this at Toboggan only he did not release the disc--which was mighty impressive.

 

[araytx]

I agree, not a throw. If the disc had been released as she fell, I'd say you have to call it a throw. She had completed the throwing motion and held on to the disc IMO, then it fell out as she tried to recover her balance. It happened quick, but definitely not a throw.

We saw Ricky do this at Toboggan only he did not release the disc--which was mighty impressive.

Lisa Fajkus gets robbed at 26th minute:

No forward propulsion, not a throw.

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.