2023 Des Moines Challenge

[DanJon]

Upon further investigation, Simon "forgot it in the car and didn't want to go back for it". :\

And I believe you are correct, it prob would've fit him fine, and he's prob even worn it before.

Kudos to you for the professionalism. Those hills at Pickard are no joke, much more extreme than they look on camera. Friday was disgustingly humid as well.

That seems like a complete BS line.

Probably puts ketchup on it, too.

I'm guessing A.1. Sauce.

 

[uncle pennybags]

That seems like a complete BS line.




I'm guessing A.1. Sauce.

Whoa there dude! A1 is high class that's only brought out for the finest of guest!

 

[ChrisWoj]

kid

Just a random FYI, because I didn't know this either and thought he was more of a "kid" too.... Schlabach will be eligible for the Masters age-protected divisions in almost exactly six months.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Seems reasonable. If both throws are legal, then no reason to force throwing the provisional.

I feel like I'm missing something here...

If Gannon is allowed to decide not to throw the second shot after calling for a provisional and then throwing the first shot, is that not an unfair advantage for him over his competition in a situation where both lies may ultimately be legal?

Situation A:
"I don't want to throw it this way, and I would not have thrown it this way, but since my card isn't sure if the way I want to throw it is legal I'm going to throw it this way."

*parks shot*

"Nevermind, I didn't want to throw it that other way, lets eliminate the risk entirely and abandon that side of the provisional."

Situation B:
"I don't want to throw it this way, and I would not have thrown it this way, but since my card isn't sure if the way I want to throw it is legal I'm going to throw it this way."

*throws disaster shot*

"Well its a good thing I have that other shot I can lean on that will ultimately be ruled legal. I'll go ahead and take that shot and argue for it later."


Additionally - everything in the rules indicates that once a provisional is declared the outcome situation will involve "both sets of throws" or "whichever of two throws." There doesn't appear to be anything indicating that after you call a provisional and throw that shot that you can choose not to follow through on the other set of shots.

 

[biscoe]

I feel like I'm missing something here...

If Gannon is allowed to decide not to throw the second shot after calling for a provisional and then throwing the first shot, is that not an unfair advantage for him over his competition in a situation where both lies may ultimately be legal?

Situation A:
"I don't want to throw it this way, and I would not have thrown it this way, but since my card isn't sure if the way I want to throw it is legal I'm going to throw it this way."

*parks shot*

"Nevermind, I didn't want to throw it that other way, lets eliminate the risk entirely and abandon that side of the provisional."

Situation B:
"I don't want to throw it this way, and I would not have thrown it this way, but since my card isn't sure if the way I want to throw it is legal I'm going to throw it this way."

*throws disaster shot*

"Well its a good thing I have that other shot I can lean on that will ultimately be ruled legal. I'll go ahead and take that shot and argue for it later."


Additionally - everything in the rules indicates that once a provisional is declared the outcome situation will involve "both sets of throws" or "whichever of two throws." There doesn't appear to be anything indicating that after you call a provisional and throw that shot that you can choose not to follow through on the other set of shots.

I am a little curious which particular aspect of the provisional rules apply to this situation at all. Status of disc/lie was not in question nor was there a ruling that resulted in possible different lies. "My group doesn't know what the rules are" isn't a listed reason for throwing a provisional.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I am a little curious which particular aspect of the provisional rules apply to this situation at all. Status of disc/lie was not in question nor was there a ruling that resulted in possible different lies. "My group doesn't know what the rules are" isn't a listed reason for throwing a provisional.

I think it has to do with the difference in lies. The rulebook defines lie and playing surface differently. So the ground itself within the area of the lie does not compose the entirety of the lie. The lie is defined as: "place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw" and by removing the stick you are altering the place on the playing surface upon which the stance is being taken, constituting a change in the "lie."

 

[biscoe]

I think it has to do with the difference in lies. The rulebook defines lie and playing surface differently. So the ground itself within the area of the lie does not compose the entirety of the lie. The lie is defined as: "place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw" and by removing the stick you are altering the place on the playing surface upon which the stance is being taken, constituting a change in the "lie."

Yeah- the moving obstacles rule does not directly reference "lie" so I would say you are right. Carry on.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

I feel like I'm missing something here...

If Gannon is allowed to decide not to throw the second shot after calling for a provisional and then throwing the first shot, is that not an unfair advantage for him over his competition in a situation where both lies may ultimately be legal?

Situation A:
"I don't want to throw it this way, and I would not have thrown it this way, but since my card isn't sure if the way I want to throw it is legal I'm going to throw it this way."

*parks shot*

"Nevermind, I didn't want to throw it that other way, lets eliminate the risk entirely and abandon that side of the provisional."

Situation B:
"I don't want to throw it this way, and I would not have thrown it this way, but since my card isn't sure if the way I want to throw it is legal I'm going to throw it this way."

*throws disaster shot*

"Well its a good thing I have that other shot I can lean on that will ultimately be ruled legal. I'll go ahead and take that shot and argue for it later."


Additionally - everything in the rules indicates that once a provisional is declared the outcome situation will involve "both sets of throws" or "whichever of two throws." There doesn't appear to be anything indicating that after you call a provisional and throw that shot that you can choose not to follow through on the other set of shots.

But if he threw the first one in a legal way, than he has to take that one. I question how he could have ever thrown a provisional once he threw a legal first shot. If he truly wanted a choice than he would have had to throw the one he thought was possibly illegal first. if it was legal than he would have had to play it.

 

[ChrisWoj]

But if he threw the first one in a legal way, than he has to take that one. I question how he could have ever thrown a provisional once he threw a legal first shot. If he truly wanted a choice than he would have had to throw the one he thought was possibly illegal first. if it was legal than he would have had to play it.

I think the order of operations in this case would be restricted to how it was played because it would require removing the stick and then replacing it exactly in order to play it the other way around. The provisional was declared prior to the first throw, and once the first throw after the provisional is called occurs both throws become necessary.

 

[dmoore1998]

But if he threw the first one in a legal way, than he has to take that one. I question how he could have ever thrown a provisional once he threw a legal first shot. If he truly wanted a choice than he would have had to throw the one he thought was possibly illegal first. if it was legal than he would have had to play it.

So then can you ever throw a provisional that involves actually moving something? Because you can't move an object, throw your provisional, then move the object back because you've now already moved the thing you weren't supposed to move. I can't imagine you're just allowed to move it, then say "ok now I'll move it back to roughly the same spot and pretend like I never moved it".

 

[txmxer]

Agree with all the questions.

The issue is we know the first throw was legal—play it as it lies.

In this particular circumstance, the provisional is irrelevant unless he makes it in the basket, unless I'm unaware of a rule that requires averaging the scores.

Example

First throw—up and down in 2.

Provisional goes OB it adds 4 strokes.

Both were legal, so what is appropriate score?


And I think that the whole thing was probably played incorrectly. You are allowed to move a detached branch in your lie. The fact that it is also in front makes no difference because the rule specifically allows moving the branch. Never should have been a provisional.

 

[chevis]

I think the order of operations in this case would be restricted to how it was played because it would require removing the stick and then replacing it exactly in order to play it the other way around. The provisional was declared prior to the first throw, and once the first throw after the provisional is called occurs both throws become necessary.

maybe this needs to be discussed in the rules topic/section.

the order of operations will differ upon when the legality of moving the object is called into question: 1.asking card if he can move the stick before throwing vs. 2.moving the stick & then the card objects.
either way, if he disagrees & says the word "provisional", he will need to throw & play out 2 different shots.

 

[chevis]

Agree with all the questions.

The issue is we know the first throw was legal—play it as it lies.

In this particular circumstance, the provisional is irrelevant unless he makes it in the basket, unless I'm unaware of a rule that requires averaging the scores.

Example

First throw—up and down in 2.

Provisional goes OB it adds 4 strokes.

Both were legal, so what is appropriate score?


And I think that the whole thing was probably played incorrectly. You are allowed to move a detached branch in your lie. The fact that it is also in front makes no difference because the rule specifically allows moving the branch. Never should have been a provisional.

if both throws are determined to be legal, it's always the 1st throw.

 

[ChrisWoj]

if both throws are determined to be legal, it's always the 1st throw.

Is this a rule? I don't see it specifically under provisionals in the book. But I'm sure I could have missed something.

Like - in this situation: he WANTS to throw without the stick. He calls provisional. Throws the shot with the stick there. Throws the shot without the stick there. If the TD rules the stick COULD be moved, it stands to reason he would have to take the second shot. But both would have been legal to take.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The provisional rule 809.02 does not allow calling a provisional in this situation. If anything, GB should get two practice throw strokes for taking that second shot and holing out from it or a misplay which would be the same 2 strokes. Although taking provisionals has been regularly recited during player meetings when players are unclear on rulings, the provisional rule explicitly indicates the times when it can be done. B.1.a. "The status of the disc cannot be readily determined because it may be lost, OB or have missed the mandatory; AND b. The group agrees that a provisional throw may save time."

In this example, the status of the disc was known and the group agreed GB could take a provisional. The rule requires both clauses to be true with the AND connector. This was not the case. Thus, GB could not take the provisional per rule even though the group indicated he could. His provisional throw was actually a practice throw along with the throw he holed out from that throw. Had he realized the correct ruling before throwing the provisional, especially since he was parked, no need to throw the second shot even though originally calling the provisional.

In the phrase "To save time, a player may declare a provisional throw any time:" the word "when" should replace "any time" to reduce confusion that provisionals can be called for any rules situation.

 

[chevis]

Is this a rule? I don't see it specifically under provisionals in the book. But I'm sure I could have missed something.

Like - in this situation: he WANTS to throw without the stick. He calls provisional. Throws the shot with the stick there. Throws the shot without the stick there. If the TD rules the stick COULD be moved, it stands to reason he would have to take the second shot. But both would have been legal to take.

i thought this was the case, but can't find it in the rulebook either. only "the score from the correct set of throws is counted." i extrapolate that the 1st throw is the the correct set, because the 2nd throw is the provisional defined by "A provisional throw is an extra throw that is not added to a player's score if it is not ultimately used in the completion of the hole"

like i pointed out, the order would depend on when the legality of the stick is called. if he asks beforehand, he would need to play with the stick 1st.

 

[chevis]

The provisional rule 809.02 does not allow calling a provisional in this situation. If anything, GB should get two practice throw strokes for taking that second shot and holing out from it or a misplay which would be the same 2 strokes. Although taking provisionals has been regularly recited during player meetings when players are unclear on rulings, the provisional rule explicitly indicates the times when it can be done. B.1.a. "The status of the disc cannot be readily determined because it may be lost, OB or have missed the mandatory; AND b. The group agrees that a provisional throw may save time."

In this example, the status of the disc was known and the group agreed GB could take a provisional. The rule requires both clauses to be true with the AND connector. This was not the case. Thus, GB could not take the provisional per rule even though the group indicated he could. His provisional throw was actually a practice throw along with the throw he holed out from that throw. Had he realized the correct ruling before throwing the provisional, especially since he was parked, no need to throw the second shot even though originally calling the provisional.

In the phrase "To save time, a player may declare a provisional throw any time:" the word "when" should replace "any time" to reduce confusion that provisionals can be called for any rules situation.

chuck, check 809.02 B.2.

B.Provisional throws are used: 2.To appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when a player in the group disagrees with a group decision and an Official is not readily available, or if a player in the group wishes to appeal the decision of an Official. The scores from both sets of throws are recorded. Once the appeal has been resolved, only the score from the correct set of throws is counted.

i haven't seen the clip of GB being discussed, so i am assuming the card said he couldn't move a stick & GB says he can & declares a provisional.

 

[Cgkdisc]

chuck, check 809.02 B.2.
i haven't seen the clip of GB being discussed, so i am assuming the card said he couldn't move a stick & GB says he can & declares a provisional.

The lies were not different so B.2 does not apply. The group didn't tell GB he couldn't move the stick, they didn't know the rule whether he could and approved the provisional.

 

[chevis]

oh. if i wasn't leaving for the weekend i would start a thread in the rules discussion about what i thought was happening... specifically where/when are there "different resulting lies" to apply 809.02 B.2.

 

[BillFleming]

If I understand what happened correctly....he should not have moved the stick. The stick was in front of his lie and not where a supporting point would be placed when taking the stance.

803.01 Moving Obstacles:
B. A player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course, with the following exceptions:
1. A player may move casual obstacles that are on the playing surface where a supporting point may be placed when taking a stance. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director. Objects intentionally placed as part of the course or event are not casual obstacles.