Wrong basket played - you be the TD

[Steve West]

Karl, I will wholeheartedly disagree with that reasoning. There are PLENTY of rules which have a minute possibility of being hard to clarify the right interpretation or even one wherein the right (according to current rules) interpretation might even provide an advantage to the thrower. That DOES NOT necessarily lead to the rule needing change or even to be looked at.

That could be the case with many rules. We cant decide to make rules clarifications or changes based upon a teeny, tiny amount of theoretical exceptions.

And that's why I like to have one punishment to cover a whole range of "different" rules. If the answer is always "par plus 4", it doesn't matter if the question is "Did the player not complete the hole, or Did the player play a wrong hole, or Did the player play to the wrong basket?".

Getting overly precise with punishment is not worth the complexity. An extreme example of this was in the 2011 rules, when there were 12 different combinations of players, group members, officials, TD, and whatever which provided precisely the right level of judgement/review/verification for the various levels of severity of violations.

Now, (since 2013) it's just: one player for a warning, two players or one official for any violation with penalty throws, and TD for disqualification.

We've lost some precision in this area, but has anyone in the last few years complained about not having exactly the right combination of authorities for calling violations?

I think that same style of thinking resulted in the formula for the score on a hole the player did not complete, as well as the penalty throws for playing the hole "half wrong" (wrong tee or target, but not both). We need simpler rules more than we need that level of precision in punishment.

 

[sidewinder22]

Better practices by the TD could have prevented the situation you are trying to fix.

^^^ This! This would never happen in a tournament I run. Everybody plays the same layout regardless of division. Should be a PDGA mandate!



The only question now is the scenario in which a whole card plays to the wrong basket or from tee. Again this would never happen in a tournament I run, any extra baskets would be removed or bagged, and again should probably be a PDGA mandate to at least cover baskets not being used in a round. And tees should be marked with flags or cones or something.

Although they perhaps might somehow play to another basket on another hole. Current rules say it's misplay score plus 2. IMO it should be par plus 2 or maybe 3, but 4 is too much. Everybody should get the same score regardless of how many strokes it took to misplay it. I think a triple bogey is enough punishment for an honest mistake. If it wasn't an honest mistake, then you got to DQ the colluding card.

 

[Karl]

And I'lI wholeheartedly disagree with your reasoning. I think rules should be written to include "everything"...and if you find out there's a glitch / loophole / etc. in the scenarios it covers, you go back and fix it (even if it means changing it quite a bit). Eventually things get better. As this one stands, I'm feeling you're thinking nothing needs be done. ??

Just 2 opinions I guess....

 

[biscoe]

^^^ This! This would never happen in a tournament I run. Everybody plays the same layout regardless of division. Should be a PDGA mandate!

negative. that is a least common denominator solution that will do more harm than good.

should td's take actions to idiot proof everything for players?- absolutely. should there be consequences for td's who screw things up?- yes again.

these scenarios are likely to increase as we see more and more courses with multiple sets of baskets in the ground.

 

[sidewinder22]

negative. that is a least common denominator solution that will do more harm than good.

Splain it to me.

 

[biscoe]

least common denominator in that it in eliminating the practice for the td's who do it wrong you are also eliminating it for the vast majority who are doing it right. we did it for 13 years at loriella for instance with zero glitches. now that demand for the event has grown to where it supports 3 separate days of competition everyone on the course on a given day is playing the same thing.

more harm than good in that given disc golf's current state where there can be as many as 10 different tournaments occurring on a course at the same time the concept of having varying divisions on layouts somewhat close to their skill level is more important than the logistical inconvenience of having groups on a course not all playing the same setup.

 

[araytx]

And that's why I like to have one punishment to cover a whole range of "different" rules. If the answer is always "par plus 4", it doesn't matter if the question is "Did the player not complete the hole, or Did the player play a wrong hole, or Did the player play to the wrong basket?".

Getting overly precise with punishment is not worth the complexity. An extreme example of this was in the 2011 rules, when there were 12 different combinations of players, group members, officials, TD, and whatever which provided precisely the right level of judgement/review/verification for the various levels of severity of violations.

Now, (since 2013) it's just: one player for a warning, two players or one official for any violation with penalty throws, and TD for disqualification.

We've lost some precision in this area, but has anyone in the last few years complained about not having exactly the right combination of authorities for calling violations?

I think that same style of thinking resulted in the formula for the score on a hole the player did not complete, as well as the penalty throws for playing the hole "half wrong" (wrong tee or target, but not both). We need simpler rules more than we need that level of precision in punishment.

i like it.

Of course, for fairness it would require accurate pars and some TDs have to get over the "everything is a par 3" mentality.

 

[araytx]

And I'lI wholeheartedly disagree with your reasoning. I think rules should be written to include "everything"...and if you find out there's a glitch / loophole / etc. in the scenarios it covers, you go back and fix it (even if it means changing it quite a bit). Eventually things get better. As this one stands, I'm feeling you're thinking nothing needs be done. ??

Just 2 opinions I guess....

yes, to each his own, I guess. But I'd contend that no sport's rule book can do that. It is an impossibility to pre-imagine every weird scenario and be sure it's covered.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Upon further eval, here's how I see it.

If you play the wrong tee or basket for the layout assigned to your division, then you didn't actually play the hole (at least not the DESIGNATED hole), therefore what you scored is irrelevant, because you played something that isn't part of the course/layout you were supposed to play.

If not caught & corrected before playing the next hole, then you missed the hole, so the penalty should be par + 4.

Of course, for fairness it would require accurate pars and some TDs have to get over the "everything is a par 3" mentality.

^ agreed.

 

[Steve West]

i like it.

Of course, for fairness it would require accurate pars and some TDs have to get over the "everything is a par 3" mentality.

"All par 3" is actually more accurate than the pars used for most Open competitions.

Open players in contention for cash are far more likely to get over-penalized from {bad par + 4} than they are to get under-penalized.

The two most common situations would be to get {3+4} on a hole where most of the field gets a 2, or {4+4} on a hole where most of the field gets a 3: both situations are effectively a five throw penalty. I'm OK with that, because it's so easy to avoid this infraction.

With "all par 3", occasionally an Open player may get a {3+4} on a hole where par should be 5, effectively getting only a two throw penalty. I'm OK with that, because for players in contention a two throw penalty is still huge.

Really bad players would not be penalized as much, because they might expect a 5 and get stuck with a {3+4}; effectively only a two throw penalty. I'm OK with that, because it's still a penalty and they're not going to cash anyway.

Players in the lower skill divisions also might get penalized less (or not at all) if pars are not set high enough to reflect their higher scores. I'm OK with that, because everything about those divisions is a little more sloppy.

Always remember, if anyone skips a hole on purpose because par+4 seems like a good score, they get disqualified.

 

[Casey 1988]

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."

I like the part about the If no subsequent throw has been
made, play continues from the resulting lie. As some places might have a shorter basket to aim at for one round that is not properly covered for the second round or division of players and a side gust of wind could make the disc go into that basket when they were not aiming for it at all. That and poorly laid out courses could have the player think they are going for said basket when they are going for a different Basket instead.

I have seen one or two of these older courses in California and one in my state I live in Rapid City South Dakota The Omaha Park Course that had a bad designed hole that you can't tell if you go to this hole, ones without number markers or that hole on the course and due to distance of disc back in 1980 they were more able to tell as you could not reach the one hole without more then 3 strokes trying to make course par 3 golf for back prior to the modern Golf Discs. I am from Pierre South Dakota. That one hole at a California 9 hole course near San Luis Obispo was a joke, a putter putting hole that prior to 1984 when Innova had the Beveled edge Disc Golf Disc would have been a par 3, was a par 2 now but still labeled a par 3. I hope they updated that hole and made it trickier somehow with obstacles or something. Oh and the Willows in Winnona, Minnesota has a hole like this too, the longer baskets are not what you aim for, one for the hole it is behind a big tree or large bush if it is still there.