Wrong basket played - you be the TD

[JC17393]

The rule book can't and shouldn't be expected to anticipate and cover every possible outcome. Not unless we want a rule book that is a million pages thick.

It would seem that if the two-throw penalty for a misplay is viewed as inadequate to address a situation like this, then it is the situation that needs to be anticipated and adjusted rather than the rule. If the difference between the two pin positions is such that a player can misplay the hole and gain an advantage (intentionally or not), then measures should be taken to prevent that from happening.

Like David suggests, the basket that is not supposed to be played could be covered or removed for the round. Or, if different divisions are playing different locations within the same round/flight, then as others have suggested, groupings should be set up to avoid having players within the same group playing to different pins. That's just an invitation for confusion like happened in the OP. Or, the TD could seek and perhaps get approval for a special condition for that hole where the penalty for misplay is more than the rule book dictated two throws.

The key in any of those solutions being that the TD and/or staff be proactive and anticipate potential problems. Of course, one can't anticipate everything, but misplays like this are ALWAYS going to be a possibility on courses where there are multiple permanently installed targets on each hole. No reason at all that precautions can't be taken on such courses to if not totally prevent, then at least greatly reduce the chances of misplay. It can't all be left to the rule book to solve post-hoc.

 

[Karl]

The OP's contention IMO is that it's a 'poorly' written rule if it allows for such a situation to occur (benefiting from doing something incorrectly). And while I agree that practical rules can't "handle ALL scenarios", any one rule should be written to handle all potential situations of THAT rule. If one can think of an odd situation where 'the handling of such just doesn't seem right' maybe that rule needs to be tweaked.

Stylusing while JC was typing. I think such a situation SHOULD be looked into! Very few rule bother competitors more than those that allow 'gaming' - whether intentionally or until intentionally. And this is one of those.

 

[brutalbrutus]

The OP's contention IMO is that it's a 'poorly' written rule if it allows for such a situation to occur (benefiting from doing something incorrectly). And while I agree that practical rules can't "handle ALL scenarios", any one rule should be written to handle all potential situations of THAT rule. If one can think of an odd situation where 'the handling of such just doesn't seem right' maybe that rule needs to be tweaked.

No. Its the same thing I posted in tobacco thread. Just stop, it is fine. It seems like eople are actively looking for ways to circumvent the rule book. That says more about the people than it does the book...

 

[PMantle]

Pretty sure the TD decided to make him replay the hole plus two strokes. I thought it was the best outcome because of the par difference. The player chose not to, because of how far out he was.

The most unbelievable part, to me, is the fact that basket discussion happened again in he presence of this player while his card was waiting to tee off on that hole. I heard it. Only thing hat makes any sense is, he wasn't paying attention either time.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Or he has selective hearing...

 

[Steve West]

Pretty sure the TD decided to make him replay the hole plus two strokes. I thought it was the best outcome because of the par difference. The player chose not to, because of how far out he was.

The most unbelievable part, to me, is the fact that basket discussion happened again in he presence of this player while his card was waiting to tee off on that hole. I heard it. Only thing hat makes any sense is, he wasn't paying attention either time.

Or hard of hearing and not willing to admit it?

Replaying the hole PLUS two penalty throws seem too harsh, and not supported by the rules.

2013 (last year's) rules: "In instances where a misplay is discovered after the player has turned in the scorecard, the misplay shall not be replayed and the player shall receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay."

Only if this all came about as the result an appeal would a replay be allowed: "E. Where a group's or official's decision is overturned on appeal, the official or Director may, in the interest of fairness, allow the thrower's score to remain the same, or adjust the thrower's score to reflect the correct interpretation of the rules. Only in a case where a replay is the most fair solution, at the discretion of the Director, shall a hole or holes be replayed."

Neither rule allows for a replay AND a penalty. Nor do the 2018 rules.

2018 Rules: "Wrong Target. The player has completed play on a target that is not the
correct target for the hole being played. If no subsequent throw has been
made, play continues from the resulting lie. If the target is a basket target,
then the disc is above the playing surface and play proceeds according to
805.01.C. If the player has teed off on the next hole, two penalty throws are
added to the score for the misplayed hole."

While this rule does not explicitly state that no replay happens, it doesn't need to. The only rule that allows for a replay is

2108 "If a ruling is overturned, an Official or the Director may adjust the player's score
to reflect the correct interpretation of the rules. Alternatively, the Director may
have the player replay one or more holes. Rulings by the Director are final."

 

[Steve West]

This is another of the growing pains of going from all par 3 holes to having some par 4s and 5. For most par 3 holes, two throws would be about what would be expected to get from the wrong target into the right one. Obviously, for a hole where one target is par 2 and the other is par 5, two throws is not enough.

A similar situation happens when the player plays an incorrect hole. When all holes were par 3, that didn't matter much and two throws was enough punishment to cover any possible advantage.

What if we changed the rules to treat using the wrong tee or wrong target (or incorrect hole) the same as missing a hole? We could say that a player who did not use the correct tee and correct target has not "played" the hole at all and give them par plus 4.

 

[biscoe]

What if we changed the rules to treat using the wrong tee or wrong target (or incorrect hole) the same as missing a hole? We could say that a player who did not use the correct tee and correct target has not "played" the hole at all and give them par plus 4.

I would support this.

 

[krupicka]

That might be a bit much. I would suggest making it "add two to the actual number of throws or to the par for the hole, which ever is greater"

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

This is another of the growing pains of going from all par 3 holes to having some par 4s and 5. For most par 3 holes, two throws would be about what would be expected to get from the wrong target into the right one. Obviously, for a hole where one target is par 2 and the other is par 5, two throws is not enough.

And in this case, it was a par 3 and the penalty, IMO, was not enough.

A similar situation happens when the player plays an incorrect hole. When all holes were par 3, that didn't matter much and two throws was enough punishment to cover any possible advantage.

I haven't gone back through the rule book to check this, but I can't think of any penalties that seem to be expressly designed to merely even up the advantage taken (intentionally or unintentionally) by a player who violates a rule.

The first example that comes to mind is a miscalculated score. The rule is not simply to add penalty throws to the incorrect score, but instead to add the penalty throws to the correct score.

In the case of this particular hole in this division, and including the two penalty throws, the player would get a one throw advantage, on average, by playing the short position instead of the long position. One of my thoughts were that if given the option before teeing off, I'd take the two penalty throws every time.

I also do not believe that this player intentionally misplayed the hole. But, if I had been TD, I would not have simply assessed two penalty throws and I think the TD's actual solution was equitable even if not supported by the applicable rule (which was inadequate in this situation).

What if we changed the rules to treat using the wrong tee or wrong target (or incorrect hole) the same as missing a hole? We could say that a player who did not use the correct tee and correct target has not "played" the hole at all and give them par plus 4.

This would lead to a better result IMO.

 

[JC17393]

The OP's contention IMO is that it's a 'poorly' written rule if it allows for such a situation to occur (benefiting from doing something incorrectly). And while I agree that practical rules can't "handle ALL scenarios", any one rule should be written to handle all potential situations of THAT rule. If one can think of an odd situation where 'the handling of such just doesn't seem right' maybe that rule needs to be tweaked.

Stylusing while JC was typing. I think such a situation SHOULD be looked into! Very few rule bother competitors more than those that allow 'gaming' - whether intentionally or until intentionally. And this is one of those.

But objectively, this isn't a poorly written rule. Objectively, the rule covers this situation or any other like it just fine. The issue here is entirely subjective. And in cases where it's a matter of disagreement on severity of the penalty vs the violation, we're beyond the function of the written rule. That's where any correction of the "problem" falls on the TD and/or the design of the course, not in re-writing the rules of the game in general.

It's like arguing that the OB rules need to be reconsidered because a course has a 400 foot long forced carry OB area with no bail out and no drop zones, so players are being unfairly punished. No, the OB rule is working as designed. The hole/course/tournament is poorly set up and the solution is to fix the hole, not the rule.

 

[brutalbrutus]

And in this case, it was a par 3 and the penalty, IMO, was not enough.



I haven't gone back through the rule book to check this, but I can't think of any penalties that seem to be expressly designed to merely even up the advantage taken (intentionally or unintentionally) by a player who violates a rule.

The first example that comes to mind is a miscalculated score. The rule is not simply to add penalty throws to the incorrect score, but instead to add the penalty throws to the correct score.

In the case of this particular hole in this division, and including the two penalty throws, the player would get a one throw advantage, on average, by playing the short position instead of the long position. One of my thoughts were that if given the option before teeing off, I'd take the two penalty throws every time.

I also do not believe that this player intentionally misplayed the hole. But, if I had been TD, I would not have simply assessed two penalty throws and I think the TD's actual solution was equitable even if not supported by the applicable rule (which was inadequate in this situation).



This would lead to a better result IMO.

Except that this would be intentional and you would be subject to disqualification...

No. Its the same thing I posted in tobacco thread. Just stop, it is fine. It seems like people are actively looking for ways to circumvent the rule book. That says more about the people than it does the book...

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Except that this would be intentional and you would be subject to disqualification...

Hence the word "if" qualifying the word "option" and the inclusion of that clause as a qualification of the rest of that sentence. So what you are pointing out is nothing more than was stated in the sentence you are addressing. The purpose of that statement was to emphasize the advantage one gains by playing to the wrong basket whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Which makes your self quote no less irrelevant than when it was originally made.

 

[PMantle]

It's not that the rule is poorly written, it's that the rule doesn't contemplate the situation. That happens all the time in sport and is one of the reasons rules are revised from time to time.

 

[DavidSauls]

I spend a fair amount of pre-tournament time sweating this sort of thing. Our course has multiple overlapping layouts, so there are baskets and tees everywhere. We spend a lot of time dashing around with garbage bags and surveyor's ribbon, and sometimes just moving the baskets, on Friday night to set up round 1, then Saturday night to convert it to Sunday's layout. And still I sweat that we've missed something, and someone will misplay a hole. Or an entire group will.

But at least we don't have different layouts in play at the same time, or card with players throwing to different baskets. That would only worsen my nightmares.

 

[Steve West]

That might be a bit much. I would suggest making it "add two to the actual number of throws or to the par for the hole, which ever is greater"

For which situations? This, wrong tee, skipped a hole, absent, failed to complete a hole, and late? What about for the rest of the misplays?

 

[JC17393]

It's not that the rule is poorly written, it's that the rule doesn't contemplate the situation. That happens all the time in sport and is one of the reasons rules are revised from time to time.

How does it not contemplate the situation, though? Because it doesn't take into account that two baskets could be 400+ feet apart and holing out on one instead of the other could result in such a different score that some people think the proscribed 2-throw penalty isn't severe enough?

I'm all for revising and tweaking rules to work better, but this seems too specific and probably rare to be something that can be easily addressed with a tweak or a re-write. And while I think the fault for the misplay is entirely on the player, things like this can be avoided or at least made more difficult to occur with different actions by the TD (for starters). Putting a player in a group in which he's the only one that was required to play the long position on the hole didn't have to happen.

Some more food for thought...what if the situation were reversed? What if it were one Intermediate player, as a result of odd numbers, who was grouped with a bunch of Advanced Grandmasters, and the Int player played the hole in question to the long position with the old guys when he should have holed out on the short position. He's already made a few extra throws on the hole, so isn't tacking on the 2-throw misplay penalty too punitive? Does the rule need revision to not be so punitive in such a case?

The purpose of the rules isn't to punish. They exist to keep everyone playing the same game. Sometimes that means a player may get off "light" on an infraction. Sometimes it means they take it on the chin for the same infraction. All based on the circumstances involved.

 

[PMantle]

How does it not contemplate the situation, though? Because it doesn't take into account that two baskets could be 400+ feet apart and holing out on one instead of the other could result in such a different score that some people think the proscribed 2-throw penalty isn't severe enough?

I'm all for revising and tweaking rules to work better, but this seems too specific and probably rare to be something that can be easily addressed with a tweak or a re-write. And while I think the fault for the misplay is entirely on the player, things like this can be avoided or at least made more difficult to occur with different actions by the TD (for starters). Putting a player in a group in which he's the only one that was required to play the long position on the hole didn't have to happen.

Some more food for thought...what if the situation were reversed? What if it were one Intermediate player, as a result of odd numbers, who was grouped with a bunch of Advanced Grandmasters, and the Int player played the hole in question to the long position with the old guys when he should have holed out on the short position. He's already made a few extra throws on the hole, so isn't tacking on the 2-throw misplay penalty too punitive? Does the rule need revision to not be so punitive in such a case?

The purpose of the rules isn't to punish. They exist to keep everyone playing the same game. Sometimes that means a player may get off "light" on an infraction. Sometimes it means they take it on the chin for the same infraction. All based on the circumstances involved.

Yes.

I don't agree.

If rules don't punish, then you have people breaking them on purpose without letting on that they are breaking them on purpose.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Can I re-quote myself again?...

 

[JC17393]

Yes.

I don't agree.

If rules don't punish, then you have people breaking them on purpose without letting on that they are breaking them on purpose.

I'm not saying the rules shouldn't punish a player for infractions. I'm saying the purpose of the rule isn't solely to inflict punishment. It's to have an universal, objective action/reaction for a given situation: do X and Y happens as a result. Not, do X and what happens next depends on subjective criteria A, B, C and D.

If players are intentionally breaking a rule for gaining an advantage (perceived or real), there already exists a further punishment for that: disqualification.