Provisional Throws for Abandoned Throws

[philstine]

Unless it's in a different section, I don't see where the rules specify how you determine which is the "correct lie":


It seems to be up to the group to determine. Why couldn't they decide it was appropriate to "abandon" a found shot and use the provisional if it would save time? Or more specifically: What in the rules prevents this?

They can't because the 809.01 vests the decision of whether or not to abandon a throw soley in the thrower.

The 809.02 restricts the group's role to agreeing that a provional throw may save time and to determining the correct lie.

The correct lie is determined by 801.01.A:

These rules have been designed to promote fair play for all disc golfers. In using these rules, the player should apply the rule that most directly addresses the situation at hand.

The rules that most directly apply are those governing the circumstances delineated in 809.02 Provisional throws, namely: 805.03 Lost Disc, 806.02 Out of Bounds, and 804.01 Mandatory Routes and Objects. The determination proceeds along the lines:

Disc not lost: play from the original throw, discard the provisional
Disc lost: penalty for lost disc, play from the provisional
Disc not OB: play from the original throw, discard the provisional
Disc OB: penalty for OB, play from the provisional
Disc made mando: play from the original throw, discard the provisional
Disc missed OB: penalty for missed mando, play from the provisional

In every case where the thrown disc comes to rest in play, 809.02 requires the player to play from the thrown disc* and the provisional throw to be discarded, so once the thrown disc is determined to be the correct lie, playing the provisional throw is no longer an option.

*subject to abandonment of the throw and rethrowing, with penalty, from the previous lie.

 

[DG_player]

They can't because the 809.01 vests the decision of whether or not to abandon a throw soley in the thrower.

The 809.02 restricts the group's role to agreeing that a provional throw may save time and to determining the correct lie.

The correct lie is determined by 801.01.A:



The rules that most directly apply are those governing the circumstances delineated in 809.02 Provisional throws, namely: 805.03 Lost Disc, 806.02 Out of Bounds, and 804.01 Mandatory Routes and Objects. The determination proceeds along the lines:

Disc not lost: play from the original throw, discard the provisional
Disc lost: penalty for lost disc, play from the provisional
Disc not OB: play from the original throw, discard the provisional
Disc OB: penalty for OB, play from the provisional
Disc made mando: play from the original throw, discard the provisional
Disc missed OB: penalty for missed mando, play from the provisional

In every case where the thrown disc comes to rest in play, 809.02 requires the player to play from the thrown disc* and the provisional throw to be discarded, so once the thrown disc is determined to be the correct lie, playing the provisional throw is no longer an option.

*subject to abandonment of the throw and rethrowing, with penalty, from the previous lie.

It's clearly unclear when both sides quote "the fairness rule" to support their position.

I wholly agree that what you're saying is most likely the intent of the rule. However there is no guidance or rule on how to determine the "correct lie". None of the rules you quoted reference a provisional ball, in the same way the abandonment rule doesn't reference a provisional ball. You could make a case for either.

 

[DG_player]

Further on the subject of provisional:

If I elect to throw a provisional, and then hit a tree 20 feet off the tee with it, can I continue playing the provisional until I reach the point where the lost/OB disc would likely be found?

Say it takes me 3 throws to reach the point and then I find the disc, can I discard the 3 throws and use the inbounds disc?

 

[krupicka]

A provisional throw if a disc might be OB begins a sequence of throws and is always discarded if the original throw was inbounds.

 

[JC17393]

Further on the subject of provisional:

If I elect to throw a provisional, and then hit a tree 20 feet off the tee with it, can I continue playing the provisional until I reach the point where the lost/OB disc would likely be found?

Say it takes me 3 throws to reach the point and then I find the disc, can I discard the 3 throws and use the inbounds disc?

Yes.

 

[sidewinder22]

The 809.02 restricts the group's role to agreeing that a provional throw may save time and to determining the correct lie.

Which is exactly what happened. The group agreed that the provisional may save time and determined which is the correct lie per the player's declared intention of the provisional.

 

[philstine]

It's clearly unclear when both sides quote "the fairness rule" to support their position.

I wholly agree that what you're saying is most likely the intent of the rule. However there is no guidance or rule on how to determine the "correct lie". None of the rules you quoted reference a provisional ball, in the same way the abandonment rule doesn't reference a provisional ball. You could make a case for either.

It's difficult to tell if you're trolling, being intentionally obtuse, or genuinely don't understand the rule.

809.02 absolutely provides guidance on how to determine the correct lie by specifically delimiting the circumstances in which a provisional throw may be made to saving time owing to the readily indeterminable status of a disc or appealing a ruling. With regard to the status of a disc, either the thrown disc is lost or not lost, in bounds or out of bounds, or it missed the mando or made the made the mando.

809.02 does not need to spell out how to determine the correct lie because 800 Description of the Game already spells out how to determine the correct lie:

Players must play the course as they find it and play the disc where it lies unless otherwise allowed by these rules.

The rules for determining the status of a disc (lost, OB, mando) do not need to reference provisionals because they apply to ALL throws, including provisionals: a provisional throw that is lost, proceed under the lost disc rule; a provisional throw that is OB, proceed under the OB rule; a provisional that misses a mando, proceed under the missed mando rule.

 

[JC17393]

It's clearly unclear when both sides quote "the fairness rule" to support their position.

I wholly agree that what you're saying is most likely the intent of the rule. However there is no guidance or rule on how to determine the "correct lie". None of the rules you quoted reference a provisional ball, in the same way the abandonment rule doesn't reference a provisional ball. You could make a case for either.

Philistine really should not be citing 801.01A in his argument because it's not necessary. Using the OB rule (806.02) to determine the correct lie for an OB disc is not a logical extension of a rule that kinda sorta covers the situation, it is THE rule. And the rule states that if a disc is found to be OB, then the player plays from one of many options (last inbounds, previous lie, drop zone). By throwing the provisional, the player is choosing previous lie from those options. Therefore if the disc is OB, the provisional is used. If it is inbounds, it is discarded. I fail to see how that is unclear.

Same for a lost disc. 805.03 dictates that if a disc cannot be found, the player must re-throw from the previous lie. In the case of a provisional, the provisional throw is that re-throw. If the disc cannot be found, the provisional is used. If the disc is found, the provisional is discarded. There is no ambiguity.

Same with a mandatory. 804.01 dictates that a disc that passes the mandatory incorrectly is re-thrown from the previous lie absent a drop zone. The provisional is that re-throw. If the disc made the mando correctly, the provisional is discarded. If it missed the mando, the provisional is used. Again, no ambiguity. It's a binary and objective decision.

Nowhere is the group given leeway to make an alternative ruling on whether the provisional is used or not. And it certainly can't be used as a re-throw pursuant to an abandoned throw because an abandoned throw is not one of the three designated reasons for throwing a time-saving provisional in the first place. If the player intended to abandon the throw, then they simply re-throw with no caveats on it being provisional. There is no further decision to make based on the position of the original disc.

 

[philstine]

Which is exactly what happened. The group agreed that the provisional may save time and determined which is the correct lie per the player's declared intention of the provisional.

Except that the OP did not throw the provisional because the disc's status was not readily determinable, but because he wanted to abandon it if it was in the woods:

I shanked a drive from a tee at the top of a very large hill. It was getting very dark very quickly, and we lost sight of the disc as it was sailing toward a wooded (in-bounds) area. It had a very small chance of turning back and clearing the woods (it would've taken a miracle to do so), but if it didn't, there was no way I wasn't going to abandon that shot. ...
We went down the hill afterward and found my disc, deep in the woods and locked in by trees.

Found disc, in bounds, no missed mando: doesn't meet the criteria for throwing a provisional:

B. Provisional throws are used:
To save time. A player may declare a provisional throw any time:
The status of a disc cannot be readily determined because it may be lost, out-of-bounds, or have missed a mandatory; and,
The group agrees that a provisional throw may save time.
The thrower then continues play from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an Official to have resulted in the correct lie.

 

[DavidSauls]

If he didn't declare the "provisional" to be in case the disc was lost, wouldn't it constitute a practice throw?

 

[JC17393]

If he didn't declare the "provisional" to be in case the disc was lost, wouldn't it constitute a practice throw?

If he didn't declare it as a provisional and he doesn't intend to use it, then yes, it would be a practice throw.

If he didn't declare it as a provisional and he does intend to use it, then it would be a re-throw pursuant to an abandoned throw and it wouldn't matter where the original throw ended up.

The key part of throwing a provisional is indicating that it is a provisional. That's why there are specific criteria for using it in a time-saving manner AND it must be agreed to by the group. Can't get that group agreement without stating the purpose of the throw.

 

[sidewinder22]

Except that the OP did not throw the provisional because the disc's status was not readily determinable, but because he wanted to abandon it if it was in the woods:



Found disc, in bounds, no missed mando: doesn't meet the criteria for throwing a provisional:

The "abandonment" status was not readily determinable and might cause a long delay. Logical extension is to throw a provisional.

 

[cheesethin]

Which is exactly what happened. The group agreed that the provisional may save time and determined which is the correct lie per the player's declared intention of the provisional.

I think what you might be missing is that a provisional can ONLY be thrown if the STATUS of the disc is unknown AND the group decides it would SAVE time. BOTH criteria must be met, just saving time isn't enough on its own. And the status of the disc is restricted to three categories, IB/OB, lost/found, and missed/made a Mando. None of which were involved here. The group determining the correct lie references these three status categories.

In this case, op stated the provisional was for his expected (!) choice to abandon the throw. The provisional rule doesn't include allowing provisionals for future choices.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Steve West]

The "abandonment" status was not readily determinable and might cause a long delay. Logical extension is to throw a provisional.

AGAIN: You don't get to extend rules merely for logic's sake, nor solely for the sake of fairness. There needs to be a point that is not covered by the rules.

If the rule covers it - even if unfairly or illogically - you play by the rule.

 

[sidewinder22]

I think what you might be missing is that a provisional can ONLY be thrown if the STATUS of the disc is unknown AND the group decides it would SAVE time. BOTH criteria must be met, just saving time isn't enough on its own. And the status of the disc is restricted to three categories, IB/OB, lost/found, and missed/made a Mando. None of which were involved here. The group determining the correct lie references these three status categories.

In this case, op stated the provisional was for his expected (!) choice to abandon the throw. The provisional rule doesn't include allowing provisionals for future choices.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

The group did agree and the status was unknown. There is no future choice as the provisional is declared beforehand why it is taken. The group decides which is the correct lie based on the declared reason.

 

[sidewinder22]

AGAIN: You don't get to extend rules merely for logic's sake, nor solely for the sake of fairness. There needs to be a point that is not covered by the rules.

If the rule covers it - even if unfairly or illogically - you play by the rule.

What rule?

 

[cheesethin]

The "abandonment" status was not readily determinable and might cause a long delay. Logical extension is to throw a provisional.

I see where you're coming from, but I think extending the 'status' of the disc to include 'the player MIGHT choose to abandon it' opens up a huge avenue of potential abuse. Because it gives a player the opportunity to compare two lies, and choose the one they prefer.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[sidewinder22]

I see where you're coming from, but I think extending the 'status' of the disc to include 'the player MIGHT choose to abandon it' opens up a huge avenue of potential abuse. Because it gives a player the opportunity to compare two lies, and choose the one they prefer.

No it doesn't. The player doesn't get to compare two lies. The group determines which is the correct lie based on the declared intention of the provisional that they all agreed to.

 

[cheesethin]

The group did agree and the status was unknown. There is no future choice as the provisional is declared beforehand why it is taken. The group decides which is the correct lie based on the declared reason.

Oh ok, I've just reread up thread, and I think your position is that the dude clearly defined his criteria for abandoning/ not abandoning his shot before taking the provisional. And you're comfortable that the group could determine adequately whether those criteria had been met.

Hmmm, interesting.

I don't think the rules as written allow this, and I don't think the fairness rule allows an exhaustive list of criteria to be extended.

But as to whether the rules should be changed to allow this.... Interesting.

First thought is that it'll probably lead to more arguments, as people fight over what they meant by 'clear the woods' etc etc



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[sidewinder22]

Remember this is all situational and the group has to agree to the provisional in the first place. If the player is not clear on the reason, then the group doesn't have to grant the provisional. I would think that clearing the woods would be an obvious decision.