Who can call or correct an infarction?

[krupicka]

In my opinion, the Q&A is not the place to be making rules. They should be explaining how to apply rules.

 

[hiflyer]

<raised hand>
I have a question!
</raised hand>

If a spectator mentions to the card that the disc went OB, IB, then OB again, but the card, for whatever reason, doesn't agree with the spectator, are they required to accept that information?

(Assume this spectator is empty handed, i.e. no phone or camera)

 

[hiflyer]

Follow up question:

If the spectator is waving his phone with the video of it while presenting this info, is the card required to strike the spectators comments from the record?

 

[DavidSauls]

<raised hand>
I have a question!
</raised hand>

If a spectator mentions to the card that the disc went OB, IB, then OB again, but the card, for whatever reason, doesn't agree with the spectator, are they required to accept that information?

(Assume this spectator is empty handed, i.e. no phone or camera)

No.

They can ignore anything the spectator says.

 

[cheesethin]

In my opinion, the Q&A is not the place to be making rules. They should be explaining how to apply rules.

I agree.

QA-CAS-3 is another example. It extends the 'if a disc can't be found but there is compelling evidence it is OB' rule from 806.02.C Out of Bounds, to include 806.03 Casual Area. This is only done in the Q&A, and not in the text for 806.03.

But there is no Q&A (or rule) doing the same for 806.04 Relief Area. So as written, the rules don't allow you to use the 'compelling evidence' rule for relief areas. Fine. But the inconsistent expression of the rule gives people a starting point to argue that it 'should' apply to relief areas. Much better to include the 'compelling evidence' clause in the the actual rule text, then if that text is not present in the Relief Area section, we know categorically that it does not apply to relief areas.

 

[JoakimBL]

In my opinion, the Q&A is not the place to be making rules. They should be explaining how to apply rules.

I agree 100%. I would actually rather that it wasn't called Q&A and instead was "official interpretations"

 

[captain jack]

:sigh:

Who can call or correct an infarction?

A doctor ?

 

[d11rok]

:sigh:



A doctor ?

Indeed. Auto correct is a pain. So is not catching said auto correct

 

[Dynamic_83]

You can take an exam on pdga.com and can become certified official that would help enforce rules

 

[ToddL]

You can take an exam on pdga.com and can become certified official that would help enforce rules

Merely being a PDGA certified official does not give you the authority to unilaterally make rules calls at tournaments. You have to be a tournament official (that is, "deputized" by the TD) to have any authority at any specific tournament.
Being a PDGA certified official doesn't mean anything if you're merely part of the gallery or even a player.

But it's a good idea to read the rules and take the rules test anyway.

 

[geoloseth]

Went back and watched the video to make sure; I've played that course hundreds of times and in tournaments they paint a line, and you can see it flagged in the video, making the opposite side of the culvert OB. So for this instance that's why the players automatically marked it on the basket side of the culvert.

As for the more general assumption it would be the cards call to come to a conclusion and/or ask for eye witness accounts.

 

[araytx]

I was watching the first round, front 9 of the "winter warm up" by GK productions yesterday and watched this scenario unfold:

There is an area of out of bounds past the basket, but this area is downhill from the tee and and basket, thus the players cannot see shortly distant to the basket. The oob area is about 10 feet of cement (drainage area) and then transitions back to grass and inbounds.

The drive goes past the basket, down hill, makes contact with the out of bounds, skips in bounds on the back side of the out of bounds area, and then slides back down into our of bounds.

Per my understanding of the rules, with perfect information the disc is taken to the last place it was inbounds, and thus in the above scenario would be on the backside of the outofbounds (so thus the next throw would have to go over oob to get to the basket). However, since I'm guessing the card thought it was more likely that the disc instead went directly oob and never made it to the other side of the oob territory (again, they could not possibly see it), the next throw was taken on the front side of oob, much closer to the basket and able to make a putt.

The card, with the information they knew, most certainly made the correct call. However, if perfect information is known, it was the incorrect call. That information was seen, since it was captured on video.

The rules q&a clearly states video and pictures cannot be used for ruling. However, there is no distinction made about, for example, spectators, other cards, etc citing a rule violation or in the above scenario, correcting the card's decision since they saw the entirety of the play.

Thus the questions: 1) who can cite rules infarctions and/or corrections, and 2) who should do so?

IMHO, since perfect information is variable based on card status, spectators, etc, only the card should be able to comment. However an argument can be made to have a spectator or the videographer point out what indeed happened and allow the card to come to a consensus thereafter.

Which shot on which hole are we talking about?

 

[_MTL_]

This is truly no different than a disc going OB and the group not correctly picking the exact spot it went OB.

Discs have a lot of action after they appear to stop and I would say 99 out of 100 times, the correct drop isn't applied in an out of bounds. This is why the ruling says group decision as opposed to finding the exact spot.