Wrong basket played - you be the TD

[PMantle]

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.

LOL

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?

It doesn't. Who said that? It applies just fine. He just chose a poor place on the course to play the wrong basket.

 

[Karl]

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.

Don't hold your breath.

So you're consigned to the fact that since "some weird situation comes along that creates a benefit" - as is the OP's scenario - that something shouldn't be done about it? The OP showed us one...and yet there are people, from the look of this discussion, that believe 'everything is just fine'. Beyond my comprehension.

Sometimes I think you're spending too much time with CK. He does the same thing: Asks another "sometimes related, sometimes not related at all" question to muddy the waters, tries to get the debater off on a tangent, states some obscurity, and claims 'victory'. I'm not biting.



The OP pointed out a situation where someone did/can benefit by something that is deemed a rules infraction (misplaying a hole), yet there appears to be nothing in the rules which 'cover' this anomaly. I believe that constitutes an "insufficient / poor rule"; certainly one that needs revising.
Apparently some people on this thread love to get all tied up in a) trivialities, b) semantics, c) defending their turf, and d) trying to 'solve' the issue without even agreeing there IS an issue. I for one believe there is an issue with this rule if it allows for the misplaying of a hole to benefit a player.

 

[PMantle]

 

[JC17393]

LOL


It doesn't. Who said that? It applies just fine. He just chose a poor place on the course to play the wrong basket.

And by the same logic, the player in the OP's scenario just happened to "choose" a beneficial place on the course to misplay to the wrong basket. You win some and you lose some. Unless the argument is that the player is intentionally misplaying the hole to gain an advantage (which opens him up to DQ according to current rules), I'm not sure how the player deserves to be penalized more harshly due purely to the dumb luck of where he happened to commit his error. And my point in continuing to bring up the inverse of the OP's scenario is to question why the rule should mitigate for a situation where the player may be perceived to benefit simply due to luck but not mitigate for a situation where the player may be perceived to be excessively punished due to luck.

As for who said "harsh=fair"...anyone who is arguing that the player in the OP not being punished enough for his error is a matter of fairness. The player is perceived to be benefiting from the misplay and some are arguing that that isn't a "fair" situation and the rule needs to be changed to bring about a more "fair" resolution. The only thing I can glean from the discussions to that end is that "harsh=fair".

 

[PMantle]

And by the same logic, the player in the OP's scenario just happened to "choose" a beneficial place on the course to misplay to the wrong basket. You win some and you lose some. Unless the argument is that the player is intentionally misplaying the hole to gain an advantage (which opens him up to DQ according to current rules), I'm not sure how the player deserves to be penalized more harshly due purely to the dumb luck of where he happened to commit his error. And my point in continuing to bring up the inverse of the OP's scenario is to question why the rule should mitigate for a situation where the player may be perceived to benefit simply due to luck but not mitigate for a situation where the player may be perceived to be excessively punished due to luck.

As for who said "harsh=fair"...anyone who is arguing that the player in the OP not being punished enough for his error is a matter of fairness. The player is perceived to be benefiting from the misplay and some are arguing that that isn't a "fair" situation and the rule needs to be changed to bring about a more "fair" resolution. The only thing I can glean from the discussions to that end is that "harsh=fair".

Putting the penal back in penalty is all.

 

[JC17393]

Putting the penal back in penalty is all.

So if the rule should essentially be a sliding scale to properly put the "penal back in penalty", does that mean the scale should go the other way and ease up when the penalty is too penal? If not, then I stand by my assessment that "fair=harsh" when it comes to how some people think the rules should function.

 

[PMantle]

So if the rule should essentially be a sliding scale to properly put the "penal back in penalty", does that mean the scale should go the other way and ease up when the penalty is too penal? If not, then I stand by my assessment that "fair=harsh" when it comes to how some people think the rules should function.

Sliding scale rule? No. How is easing up penal? I don't agree with your assessment, or really anything you've posted.

 

[teemkey]

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.

If you want to establish that approach as a precedent, then what happens to a player who turns in a scorecard with a total 3 throws too high?

 

[JC17393]

Sliding scale rule? No. How is easing up penal? I don't agree with your assessment, or really anything you've posted.

So you want to see the penalty for misplay increase across the board? That two throws isn't enough of a penalty for misplay at all, and not just in rare instances such as the one brought up in the OP?

Maybe we should keep the "put the penal in penalty" train rolling and increase OB penalties too? How about if you lose a disc? Two throw penalty sounds good, no? After all, if you don't want to take that penalty, don't choose to lose a disc.

 

[PMantle]

So you want to see the penalty for misplay increase across the board? That two throws isn't enough of a penalty for misplay at all, and not just in rare instances such as the one brought up in the OP?

Maybe we should keep the "put the penal in penalty" train rolling and increase OB penalties too? How about if you lose a disc? Two throw penalty sounds good, no? After all, if you don't want to take that penalty, don't choose to lose a disc.

No, but feel free to keep bringing up situations that have no relevance here.

 

[Steve West]

Don't hold your breath.

So you're consigned to the fact that since "some weird situation comes along that creates a benefit" - as is the OP's scenario - that something shouldn't be done about it? The OP showed us one...and yet there are people, from the look of this discussion, that believe 'everything is just fine'. Beyond my comprehension.

Sometimes I think you're spending too much time with CK. He does the same thing: Asks another "sometimes related, sometimes not related at all" question to muddy the waters, tries to get the debater off on a tangent, states some obscurity, and claims 'victory'. I'm not biting.



The OP pointed out a situation where someone did/can benefit by something that is deemed a rules infraction (misplaying a hole), yet there appears to be nothing in the rules which 'cover' this anomaly. I believe that constitutes an "insufficient / poor rule"; certainly one that needs revising.
Apparently some people on this thread love to get all tied up in a) trivialities, b) semantics, c) defending their turf, and d) trying to 'solve' the issue without even agreeing there IS an issue. I for one believe there is an issue with this rule if it allows for the misplaying of a hole to benefit a player.

Actually, I was trying not to take a position so that I could hear more ideas and opinions.

But, since it appears people will assume I disagree with them unless otherwise informed (this is certainly not the first time)...

I do think the rule is flawed. Not so flawed that it needs to be fixed right now - but only because the situation is rare and a lot of things have to go wrong for it to happen. And it cannot happen solely because a player decides to play for the advantage - at least not without the risk of DQ.

It is on the list of things to look at for the next revision. Right now, the leading candidate (in my mind) is par plus 4 for using the wrong tee, wrong target, or entire wrong hole. Can anything beat that?

If you don't want to present an idea for what the rule should be, fine. General notions about how rules should perform are also helpful.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

If you don't want to present an idea for what the rule should be, fine. General notions about how rules should perform are also helpful.

Seems the rule is mostly fine already. A very rare case occurred but the only way to solve this particular case is for maybe some kind of sliding scale par+2 or score on played hole+2 whichever was greater, but then that brings into the idea what if the tournament rules were "All Pro divisions and Advanced" where the Adv Masters and Up as well as Adv Women played the short? Say an Advanced Master player was on the card with a bunch of Adv players and played the long. Scored a 6. Now his score is a P8 where the rest of his division averaged a 3 or better. Is that a fair punishment? Wrong hole played. Same Rule.

The rule needs to address both situations and punish each case appropriately for the violation.
But actually what i'm reading in this thread is the desire that the rules anticipate and punish fairly every possible scenario in the game even the type that haven't yet happened. Tall order.

 

[JoakimBL]

Why is it a problem that a player that plays the long instead of the short get at harsher penalty? It is the players own fault and responsibility. In the reverse scenario of the OP, you are essentially punishing every other player in the division for playing correctly. If a player chooses to tin cup an island hole instead of going to the DZ, he is also getting a harsher penalty, whether he did so on purpose or because he was not aware of the DZ. That is entirely his own responsibility, and only impacts him self. Determining whether or not an error was made or someone deliberately tried to circumvent the rules, can be pretty difficult and puts the TD in a ****ty situation. Having the rules make it so that it is never to the players benefit to play the course incorrectly, whether by mistake or intention takes away the need to make the distinction.

As to my initial suggestion that the player in question replays the hole, at the TD's discretion seems both within the rules and a fair solution. Especially since the TD should have done more to make sure the player was not put in this position, and at the very least made sure he was aware that he was playing a different layout than the rest of his group. A solution that doesn't impact any other player.

 

[Discette]

Actually, I was trying not to take a position so that I could hear more ideas and opinions.

But, since it appears people will assume I disagree with them unless otherwise informed (this is certainly not the first time)...

I do think the rule is flawed. Not so flawed that it needs to be fixed right now - but only because the situation is rare and a lot of things have to go wrong for it to happen. And it cannot happen solely because a player decides to play for the advantage - at least not without the risk of DQ.

It is on the list of things to look at for the next revision. Right now, the leading candidate (in my mind) is par plus 4 for using the wrong tee, wrong target, or entire wrong hole. Can anything beat that?

If you don't want to present an idea for what the rule should be, fine. General notions about how rules should perform are also helpful.

I do think you state my position very properly here:

I do think the rule is flawed. Not so flawed that it needs to be fixed right now - but only because the situation is rare and a lot of things have to go wrong for it to happen.

Regarding Par Plus 4 as a solution -

Right now, the leading candidate (in my mind) is par plus 4 for using the wrong tee, wrong target, or entire wrong hole.

Did you miss this?:

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

The TD listed both pin placements as Par 3. So your valiant attempt to make this rule "fairer" has been thwarted again by the very same TD that grouped the Advanced player with the other division and caused the problem in the first case. Better practices by the TD could have prevented the situation you are trying to fix.

 

[PMantle]

The TD listed both pin placements as Par 3. So your valiant attempt to make this rule "fairer" has been thwarted again by the very same TD that grouped the Advanced player with the other division and caused the problem in the first case. Better practices by the TD could have prevented the situation you are trying to fix.

No, that's not right. The player in question was supposed to play a basket that was a par 5. He played the close position which is a par 3.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Seems the rule is mostly fine already. A very rare case occurred but the only way to solve this particular case is for maybe some kind of sliding scale par+2 or score on played hole+2 whichever was greater, but then that brings into the idea what if the tournament rules were "All Pro divisions and Advanced" where the Adv Masters and Up as well as Adv Women played the short? Say an Advanced Master player was on the card with a bunch of Adv players and played the long. Scored a 6. Now his score is a P8 where the rest of his division averaged a 3 or better. Is that a fair punishment? Wrong hole played. Same Rule.

The rule needs to address both situations and punish each case appropriately for the violation.
But actually what i'm reading in this thread is the desire that the rules anticipate and punish fairly every possible scenario in the game even the type that haven't yet happened. Tall order.

I think that would be a perfectly fair outcome for a variety of reasons. First, a player who doesn't play the same course as all of his competitors, for whatever reason, should pay a fairly heavy price. Secondly, any problem that adds to the headache of running a tournament and for which the competitor is to blame should merit additional punishment. Thirdly, awarding the greater penalty of par+2 or actual throws + 2 (or however many penalty throws are added), punishes not just playing the wrong hole but wasting the time to do so if the competitor plays a longer hole. Finally, and this is where we probably disagree the most, any penalty, known in advance, for specified conduct, cannot be said to be unfair when meted out for that conduct. You can call it draconian, overly severe or utterly disproportionate, but when a player, through intent or inadvertence, violates that rule, receives the penalty, he has no valid complaint related to "fairness."

You describe this as a "very rare case." I wonder how often players play the wrong hole and that, when they do, how often the difficulty of the wrong hole matches exactly the difficulty of the correct one.

 

[Steve West]

I'm not sure what par the TD assigned to the longest position. Even if it was 3, the "plus four" part would make it a lot less advantageous than adding two penalty throws to the throws made.

Another goal for "good" rules we could pursue is to make them TD-proof. Some steps in that direction are desirable, but to completely meet that goal would only help some tournaments while handcuffing all of them.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

If you want to establish that approach as a precedent, then what happens to a player who turns in a scorecard with a total 3 throws too high?

Nothing particularly groundbreaking; the player gets two penalty throws. If you are suggesting that the player gets a windfall, then you simply don't understand how that rule works.

 

[Steve West]

...awarding the greater penalty of par+2 or actual throws + 2 (or however many penalty throws are added), punishes not just playing the wrong hole but wasting the time to do so if the competitor plays a longer hole....

Thanks. I couldn't think of a single reason why playing a harder hole than you should have played needs to be treated more harshly than playing an easier hole than you should have.

I don't think it's a good enough reason to mete out extra punishment, or even to merit the extra complexity of the rule .... but at least it's a reason.

 

[PMantle]

I'm not sure what par the TD assigned to the longest position. Even if it was 3, the "plus four" part would make it a lot less advantageous than adding two penalty throws to the throws made.

It was a 5.



I play, at most three tournaments per year, and have done so for only about 4 years. I have already witnessed two players play the wrong basket lol.