Wrong basket played - you be the TD

[Steve West]

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.

The punishment has to be there, but no amount of punishment (short of DQ) is enough to make following the rules the most desirable way for a would-be cheater to play in every situation.

Take marking violations. After teeing off, one could mark the lie under the basket for just a warning (because the mini wasn't touching the front of the disc) and save several throws on a 1200 foot hole. That doesn't mean we should bump up the penalty for marking violations to 10 throws just so breaking the marking rules on purpose will never pay off. We just DQ anyone who breaks any rule on purpose, and have a fair punishment for unintentionally breaking a rule.

 

[PMantle]

The punishment has to be there, but no amount of punishment (short of DQ) is enough to make following the rules the most desirable way for a would-be cheater to play in every situation.

Take marking violations. After teeing off, one could mark the lie under the basket for just a warning (because the mini wasn't touching the front of the disc) and save several throws on a 1200 foot hole. That doesn't mean we should bump up the penalty for marking violations to 10 throws just so breaking the marking rules on purpose will never pay off. We just DQ anyone who breaks any rule on purpose, and have a fair punishment for unintentionally breaking a rule.

I don't understand.

 

[Karl]

We just DQ anyone who breaks any rule on purpose, and have a fair punishment for unintentionally breaking a rule.

I can basically agree with this...providing "fair punishment" is NEVER a benefit to the perpetrator (as it is in the OP). We can argue as to how penal ANY punishment (for any case) should be but IMO there's just something wrong with a "punishment that isn't".

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

The purpose of the rules isn't to punish.

I think you need to look up the definition of the word "penalty."

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

That doesn't mean we should bump up the penalty for marking violations to 10 throws just so breaking the marking rules on purpose will never pay off. We just DQ anyone who breaks any rule on purpose, and have a fair punishment for unintentionally breaking a rule.

It doesn't mean that we should do anything extreme. But that doesn't meant that a better rule could not be written. This sort of consideration is already taken into in other penalties. The penalty for a late arrival that misses a hole is to score the hole as par plus 4. Notice that the penalty is adjusted based on the score of the hole. That rule takes the par of the hole into account. There's no reason that a misplayed hole couldn't have a penalty that takes the par of the hole into account . . . and that needn't implicate any 10 throw penalty or any other argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[PMantle]

It doesn't mean that we should do anything extreme. But that doesn't meant that a better rule could not be written. This sort of consideration is already taken into in other penalties. The penalty for a late arrival that misses a hole is to score the hole as par plus 4. Notice that the penalty is adjusted based on the score of the hole. That rule takes the par of the hole into account. There's no reason that a misplayed hole couldn't have a penalty that takes the par of the hole into account . . . and that needn't implicate any 10 throw penalty or any other argumentum ad absurdum.

But we have to have a bunch of 1000 rated players play he hole first before we even know what par is on the hole.

 

[Steve West]

I can basically agree with this...providing "fair punishment" is NEVER a benefit to the perpetrator (as it is in the OP). We can argue as to how penal ANY punishment (for any case) should be but IMO there's just something wrong with a "punishment that isn't".

"NEVER" is probably impossible. If the punishment had been to take a score of par plus 4, or 2 more than the greater of par or throws made, someone playing that hole still might come out ahead someday.

I'd be comfortable is there was a minimal chance that the player would come out ahead, and even if the player comes out ahead, it would most likely be some player that is playing in a lower division or has no chance to win anything.

 

[JoakimBL]

How does the rule not take into account this situation?

I don't think the rule takes into account that breaking it could possible be an advantage to the player. An easy par 3 vs. a hard par 5.
It has nothing to do with the player being at fault or not, but has to do with fairness of having it be a benefit to the player. I have the same issue with the rule concerning playing a wrong hole.

 

[Karl]

"NEVER" is probably impossible. If the punishment had been to take a score of par plus 4, or 2 more than the greater of par or throws made, someone playing that hole still might come out ahead someday.

I'd be comfortable is there was a minimal chance that the player would come out ahead, and even if the player comes out ahead, it would most likely be some player that is playing in a lower division or has no chance to win anything.

YOU'D be comfortable...I wouldn't. And I never said "If the punishment had been to take a score of par plus 4...", you did.

 

[krupicka]

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?

I would use the par or actual throws +2 whichever is greater for the misplays where the wrong start/stop is used (i.e. wrong tee or wrong target). I don't see a reason to change the others.

 

[JC17393]

I don't think the rule takes into account that breaking it could possible be an advantage to the player. An easy par 3 vs. a hard par 5.
It has nothing to do with the player being at fault or not, but has to do with fairness of having it be a benefit to the player. I have the same issue with the rule concerning playing a wrong hole.

Right, but "fairness" is subjective. Who draws the line between fair/unfair and how do we write a rule so that that line is clear? And what happens if one disagrees with where ever the line is drawn (as apparently some do now)?

As written now, the rule can be simply applied to any case...misplay = 2 throw penalty. End of discussion. How does the rule get re-written so that it can still be simply applied to any case while accounting for the perception of fairness in the level of punishment for the "crime"?

Also, no one has addressed my question from earlier...if the rule book penalty is not harsh enough for the "crime" in the OP, what happens if the situation were reversed...if the player holed out to the long position when he was supposed to play for the short? Perhaps taking a 6 when a 3 was most likely if he'd done it correctly. Should he not be penalized because adding two throws on to what is already arguably a self-imposed three throw penalty is "too harsh"? Who decides that and where is the line where the penalty should be reduced or eliminated despite the "crime"?

If the current rule can be construed as not penal enough in some situations, then it needs to be acknowledged that there may be situations where the rule can be construed as too penal. Any discussions about changing the rule to address the former need to address the latter as well. And that's where I think ultimately we come to the rule, as is, is sufficient to cover misplays. Because the alternative could become so muddled and cumbersome as to make things worse.

 

[Steve West]

YOU'D be comfortable...I wouldn't. And I never said "If the punishment had been to take a score of par plus 4...", you did.

So what penalty would you impose for the OP to get to NEVER?

 

[Steve West]

I would use the par or actual throws +2 whichever is greater for the misplays where the wrong start/stop is used (i.e. wrong tee or wrong target). I don't see a reason to change the others.

Id say "par or actual throws + 2 whichever is greater" is too complicated, with three parameters and three operations to calculate it. Not to mention it being one more class of punishment.

Also, playing a really long hole instead of a short one isn't a worse crime than playing a really short hole instead of a long one, yet actual throws + 2 would give more punishment.

 

[Karl]

So what penalty would you impose for the OP to get to NEVER?

I haven't thought about it long enough to come up with the best solution but it sure as heck would NEVER be something that someone could "benefit" from. And yes Mr. Never Say Never, I'm saying never.

 

[PMantle]

Right, but "fairness" is subjective. Who draws the line between fair/unfair and how do we write a rule so that that line is clear? And what happens if one disagrees with where ever the line is drawn (as apparently some do now)?

As written now, the rule can be simply applied to any case...misplay = 2 throw penalty. End of discussion. How does the rule get re-written so that it can still be simply applied to any case while accounting for the perception of fairness in the level of punishment for the "crime"?

Also, no one has addressed my question from earlier...if the rule book penalty is not harsh enough for the "crime" in the OP, what happens if the situation were reversed...if the player holed out to the long position when he was supposed to play for the short? Perhaps taking a 6 when a 3 was most likely if he'd done it correctly. Should he not be penalized because adding two throws on to what is already arguably a self-imposed three throw penalty is "too harsh"? Who decides that and where is the line where the penalty should be reduced or eliminated despite the "crime"?

If the current rule can be construed as not penal enough in some situations, then it needs to be acknowledged that there may be situations where the rule can be construed as too penal. Any discussions about changing the rule to address the former need to address the latter as well. And that's where I think ultimately we come to the rule, as is, is sufficient to cover misplays. Because the alternative could become so muddled and cumbersome as to make things worse.

Nah. Penalties should be penal. If you don't want a harsh penalty, play the basket you were told to play.

 

[biscoe]

Id say "par or actual throws + 2 whichever is greater" is too complicated, with three parameters and three operations to calculate it. Not to mention it being one more class of punishment.

Also, playing a really long hole instead of a short one isn't a worse crime than playing a really short hole instead of a long one, yet actual throws + 2 would give more punishment.

If the new lie or holing out rules are not too complicated, this surely isn't.

...and if they played a really long (par 5) hole instead of a really short one (par 3) the penalty would likely be based on par rather than number of strokes.

You could also go with "par + 2" of the appropriate hole or "actual strokes" whichever is greater.

 

[Steve West]

I haven't thought about it long enough to come up with the best solution but it sure as heck would NEVER be something that someone could "benefit" from. And yes Mr. Never Say Never, I'm saying never.

OK, I'll wait.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying "never" is not a worthy goal, just that no matter how we set punishment, there will be some weird situation that comes along that creates a benefit.

Along the same lines, do you consider OB 10 feet behind the target as creating a benefit? For the cost of a penalty throw, the player gets to move the lie to a sure putt, no matter how far past the basket they threw.

 

[PMantle]

Along the same lines, do you consider OB 10 feet behind the target as creating a benefit? For the cost of a penalty throw, the player gets to move the lie to a sure putt, no matter how far past the basket they threw.

But...there's...a penalty. Roads, trails etc. it's going to happen. Placing the basket closer has design effects.

You play with better putters than I do.

 

[JC17393]

Nah. Penalties should be penal. If you don't want a harsh penalty, play the basket you were told to play.

You're right. **** it. DQ them all. I mean, if penalties should be penal, then let's not hold back. Make them as harsh as possible for maximum deterrence. You play to the wrong basket...disqualification. You go OB...disqualification. You foot fault...disqualification. If you don't want to be disqualified, don't violate the rules.

But seriously...why does a penalty have to be as harsh as possible to be effective? Why does harsh=fair? The only proposal I've seen to "correct" the injustice of the OP has been to offer a choice of score+penalty or par+penalty, whichever is higher. How does that apply to the player who incorrectly plays to a long basket instead of a short one? He's already very likely thrown more throws than he should have if he'd played correctly, does he deserve a harsh penalty on top of that? Is that fair?

 

[brutalbrutus]

They never answered that scenario when I brought it up... twice