2016 Memorial Championship presented by Discraft

[SonicGuy]

I agree it would be more clear if this:

"This procedure continues on any subsequent tee offs for which a player is absent."

were tweaked to say this:

"This procedure continues on subsequent tee offs if the player continues to be absent."

Agreed

 

[DatRedDude]

You guys have got Skinny all wrong. What he is trying to say is that John thought the round had just started and he was on hole one. Paul was late for the round and hence, deserved a stroke, or would it have been a seven for a missed hole, or a lightning strike for playing in the rain?

For those who said we don't know, well we do, it was all there live. Now, we don't know that Paul said, "Gotta pee, gotta pee, gotta pee," while wriggling around in his McPants, but Terry tells us he did. Now Terry might have made that up off the cuff, in which I have to admire his skills as a commentator even more than I have in the past, but I see no real need to. Paul does have an obligation to tell his card mates, courtesy if nothing else, but the timing on John's part convinces me that he knew Paul was gone, he didn't even look. Why would he not look around for Paul unless he already knew what Paul was doing? Oh wait, I need to go pee, be right back....

1, 2, 3, 4-30. You have been assessed a 9 stroke penalty and must get cupcakes smashed in your face.

 

[SkinnyArms]

Subsequent is in reference to missing additional holes in sequence after the first one is missed at the start of play.

No, it's not, this ruling can be referred to at anytime someone is teeing off and they are not present.

in golf, every time you end a hole, your round is effectively over until you start a new hole.

 

[JC17393]

No, it's not, this ruling can be referred to at anytime someone is teeing off and they are not present.

in golf, every time you end a hole, your round is effectively over until you start a new hole.

Hate to break it to you, but this isn't golf. It's disc golf. We have our own rules...which you are misinterpreting in this case.

 

[SkinnyArms]

Usually I'm the first person to agree that the rules are poorly written. This however is not. You have to pretty effing dense to not understand thw word subsequent in the context of being absent at the start of a round. As soon as you are present for the first hole of the round and have made one throw, this rule is no longer in effect.

No, you are wrong, if it is no longer in effect after the first throw. why would the rule apply to a player who has not completed a round?

It specifically addresses complete rounds missed AND failure to finish.

Like I said above, in golf, every time you hole out, your round is effectively over until you continue onto and commence the next hole.

 

[SkinnyArms]

Hate to break it to you, but this isn't golf. It's disc golf. We have our own rules...which you are misinterpreting in this case.

its the same for disc golf. Same scoring applies as in golf hence the reference.

 

[JC17393]

No, you are wrong, if it is no longer in effect after the first throw. why would the rule apply to a player who has not completed a round?

Easy...it doesn't.

It specifically addresses complete rounds missed AND failure to finish.

Again, it doesn't. It is in a section entitled "BEGINNING PLAY". Failure to finish a round is a different part of the rule book.

Like I said above, in golf, every time you hole out, your round is effectively over until you continue onto and commence the next hole.

Again, this isn't golf.

 

[SkinnyArms]

I agree it would be more clear if this:

"This procedure continues on any subsequent tee offs for which a player is absent."

were tweaked to say this:

"This procedure continues on subsequent tee offs if the player continues to be absent."

Well those are two totally different things.

 

[DatRedDude]

No, you are wrong, if it is no longer in effect after the first throw. why would the rule apply to a player who has not completed a round?

It specifically addresses complete rounds missed AND failure to finish.

Like I said above, in golf, every time you hole out, your round is effectively over until you continue onto and commence the next hole.

In baseball if you foul tip a bunt on the third strike you are out.


This isn't golf, you don't understand the rules. You really should be on the best dressed thread, it's more fitting as there are no rules discussions over there and multiple golf references.

 

[SkinnyArms]

Easy...it doesn't.


Again, it doesn't. It is in a section entitled "BEGINNING PLAY". Failure to finish a round is a different part of the rule book.


Again, this isn't golf.

Again, it does, read.

ole. This procedure continues on any subsequent tee offs for which a player is absent. No holes shall be replayed. If a complete round is missed, or if a player does not finish a round, the player may, at the discretion of the Tournament Director, be disqualified.

 

[IHearChains]

So where are all the salty apologys from all the folks that jumped on the bully train before knowing the whole story???

I don't care whether his dad was involved, or whether the kid is on the Innova junior team.

When several adult men gang up to prank a 13 yr old kid on his birthday, in public, on camera, it raises serious red flags, so it's just not funny to most people.

If you're part of the inside joke then I can see how it would be funny, but 99% of people watching were outsiders, not in on the joke. So it came off making McBeth look bad, and he knows it, that's probably why he tried to defend it on Smashboxx later. I'm sure he doesn't want some fanboy to copycat this prank and hurt some 13 yr old.

 

[coupe]

It is indeed ambiguous even in the correct context. It is but one poorly written rule inside of a poorly written rulebook.




SOOOO, if a player is absent on a tee off you must apply the procedure.

Please keep in mind I do not agree with this reading, but it is a valid reading of the rules.

No, it's not. A reading of the rules is only valid if it comprehends ALL the stipulations set forth in the rule.

The quoted passage appears as the SECOND paragraph in the Competition Manual under 1.5 Practice Rounds and Beginning Play B.1, "Shotgun Starts," and WITHIN the paragraph B.2 "Staggered Starts."

As such, it marks the procedure as an exception to the general procedure spelled out in Rule Book 804.01, and limits its application solely to holes missed at the start of the round for which the player is absent.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

No, it's not. A reading of the rules is only valid if it comprehends ALL the stipulations set forth in the rule.

The quoted passage appears as the SECOND paragraph in the Competition Manual under 1.5 Practice Rounds and Beginning Play B.1, "Shotgun Starts," and WITHIN the paragraph B.2 "Staggered Starts."

As such, it marks the procedure as an exception to the general procedure spelled out in Rule Book 804.01, and limits its application solely to holes missed at the start of the round for which the player is absent.

thank you for actually posting the links to the rules. I can't stand when people argue rules and don't have any backup, or even worse, have never even read the rules in the first place.

What I don't get it why Paul didn't just take his time, knowing that it would be a warning and he wouldn't have a problem finishing the round without it happening again

 

[lyleoross]

Well those are two totally different things.

Just so you understand skinny, cdkdisc is chuck kennedy. He has been a central figure in the sport for a bery bery bery long time. He knows the rules, their intent, and the PDGA pretty well. I think I'll go with his interpretations and thoughts on this one.

 

[SkinnyArms]

Done with the ignorance here, if people can't trust my word. Ask a TD if you know or anyone in the open field really.

"What happens if a player is absent for his turn of tee off on the 16th hole, a 30+ second countdown is completed, and the next in line is requesting to treat-off?"

According to PDGA what should follow?

 

[SkinnyArms]

No, it's not. A reading of the rules is only valid if it comprehends ALL the stipulations set forth in the rule.

The quoted passage appears as the SECOND paragraph in the Competition Manual under 1.5 Practice Rounds and Beginning Play B.1, "Shotgun Starts," and WITHIN the paragraph B.2 "Staggered Starts."

As such, it marks the procedure as an exception to the general procedure spelled out in Rule Book 804.01, and limits its application solely to holes missed at the start of the round for which the player is absent.

Where does it say it limits it to hole 1?

 

[OB Four]

Done with the ignorance here, if people can't trust my word. Ask a TD if you know or anyone in the open field really.

"What happens if a player is absent for his turn of tee off on the 16th hole, a 30+ second countdown is completed, and the next in line is requesting to treat-off?"

According to PDGA what should follow?

http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/804-the-throw/80401-excessive-time

 

[Pbmercil]

The language is ambiguous. You know what it means, most of us know what it means, but just purely based on the language you could make a low percentage argument to the contrary. This should be worded differently.

I don't agree that any rule that is worded in a way that one person can make a crappy arguement No one agrees with is ambiguous or poorly worded. There are a lot of low percentage crappy arguements that nobody believes to be had, it doesn't mean a rule is poorly written. If 99% of players agree on a rule interpretation I don't understand why the rules should be rewritten to invalidate an argument nobody believes anyway. That's how you end up with incomprehensible rulebooks nobody can understand because they try (and fail) to cover every possible theoretical contingency.

 

[DatRedDude]

Done with the ignorance here, if people can't trust my word. Ask a TD if you know or anyone in the open field really.

"What happens if a player is absent for his turn of tee off on the 16th hole, a 30+ second countdown is completed, and the next in line is requesting to treat-off?"

According to PDGA what should follow?

I trust the rulebook, you ahbe proven you dont know what ur talking about so trusting your word makes us all stupid.

You do realize there many open players on this forum. I assume based on your response youare an open plyer which is sad that you have no clue.

What is a treat off? Sounds tasty.

 

[YawningDrone]

what the hell happened in here.

My head hurts