Wrong basket played - you be the TD

[DG_player]

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?

This seems like the obvious solution. I don't see any advantage or reason for having different penalties for failure to properly complete a hole. If you're late, start from the wrong tee, play to the wrong basket, ignore a mando, etc., it doesn't really matter, you failed to play the hole. Take your par + 4.

It achieves a number of rule goals:

Fairness, everyone gets the same penalty for the same thing.

Simplicity, you don't have to look in a rule book or remember six variations of the same rule, all you have to do is remember that failure to complete a hole is par + 4.

 

[Steve West]

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.

I meant the situation where the targets are two or more throws apart (and they are played wrong).

 

[BogeyNoMore]

This seems like the obvious solution. I don't see any advantage or reason for having different penalties for failure to properly complete a hole. If you're late, start from the wrong tee, play to the wrong basket, ignore a mando, etc., it doesn't really matter, you failed to play the hole. Take your par + 4.

It achieves a number of rule goals:

Fairness, everyone gets the same penalty for the same thing.

Simplicity, you don't have to look in a rule book or remember six variations of the same rule, all you have to do is remember that failure to complete a hole is par + 4.

This makes sense for all the reasons listed... which is why I'm worried they won't do it.

 

[teemkey]

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.

I was responding to a post regarding penalties where Karl said "... it sure as heck would NEVER be something that someone could "benefit" from..."

If the player turns in a scorecard 3 throws higher than the actual sum, but after it is corrected and penalized the player's total is one throw better than when it was turned in. The rule does not say "the actual total plus two penalty throws OR the original total, whichever is higher." Essentially, the player gets a lower score which is beneficial to their standing in the tournament.

Regarding the discussion at hand, my interpretation is that hole designated for the player's division was not played, and the rules should provide a penalty for unplayed holes (whatever the reason).

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

If the player turns in a scorecard 3 throws higher than the actual sum, but after it is corrected and penalized the player's total is one throw better than when it was turned in. The rule does not say "the actual total plus two penalty throws OR the original total, whichever is higher." Essentially, the player gets a lower score which is beneficial to their standing in the tournament.

No, the player doesn't get a lower score. He gets his actual score plus two throws. The incorrect tally that the player turned in wasn't his score and that is why he got penalized - and ended up with a score that is two throws worse than the actual score. There is no benefit to the player in that situation.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

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.

Good enough for extra punishment? Maybe. Certainly avoiding the additional complexity added by the "whichever is greater" suggestion might be worthwhile.

But I'll give you another reason: practice throws. If you leave out the "whichever is greater" suggestion, the player may get to take additional throws that are not counted toward his score. A worthy consideration? Worth additional complexity? I don't know. Should practice throws be penalized?

Even if you don't consider extra throws at a longer basket to be practice throws, is there any other situation in which throws made during the tournament (other than provisional throws) are not counted?

Here's another reason, potentially influencing others to follow suit, further messing up the tournament. Part of the blame may be on the TD's head for bad grouping decisions, but some courses aren't the easiest to navigate for first timers who may blindly follow the group ahead or go along with another player when they didn't pay attention at the players' meeting.

I don't know if any of theses considerations are good reasons for the "extra punishment." Ultimately, a simple Par+4 for the violation would cover it nicely IMO.

 

[teemkey]

No, the player doesn't get a lower score. He gets his actual score plus two throws. The incorrect tally that the player turned in wasn't his score and that is why he got penalized - and ended up with a score that is two throws worse than the actual score. There is no benefit to the player in that situation.

Effectively the player benefited from the rule that all scores are checked, and that incorrect totals are corrected with a 2 throw penalty. The player received a lower score than the scorecard indicated when it was turned in.

My point is that sometimes a penalty may lower a player's tournament score while still being fair to other competitors and adhering to the spirit of the game. Basically it penalizes all incorrect totals identically, regardless of magnitude and direction.

Further, I think this is a good principle to follow in rule making for tournament play. Not playing the correct hole should carry an identical penalty regardless of reason (not present, wrong tee, wrong basket) since they all result in the same problem in calculating the player's total for the round.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Effectively the player benefited from the rule that all scores are checked, and that incorrect totals are corrected with a 2 throw penalty. The player received a lower score than the scorecard indicated when it was turned in.

Nah. You can try to restate this as much as you want, but the player received a two stroke penalty. If you want to call a penalty a "benefit," then so be it. But the player's poor math skills didn't give him a higher score. The score was the number of throws, not whatever incorrect total the player put in the last blank.

My point is that sometimes a penalty may lower a player's tournament score while still being fair to other competitors and adhering to the spirit of the game. Basically it penalizes all incorrect totals identically, regardless of magnitude and direction.

I am unaware of any penalty that "lowers a players tournament score." And certainly the failure to add correctly didn't lower the score in your example. Can a player benefit from a rule that allows him to play an easier basket while assessing a low penalty? Sure. The penalty still doesn't "lower" the score.

Further, I think this is a good principle to follow in rule making for tournament play. Not playing the correct hole should carry an identical penalty regardless of reason (not present, wrong tee, wrong basket) since they all result in the same problem in calculating the player's total for the round.

I agree with your conclusion here, if not necessarily how you are getting to it.

 

[Discette]

Further, I think this is a good principle to follow in rule making for tournament play. Not playing the correct hole should carry an identical penalty regardless of reason (not present, wrong tee, wrong basket) since they all result in the same problem in calculating the player's total for the round.

Speaking of not present....

1.05 F was updated in the new Competition Manual to specify that late arriving players MUST play with the group to which they were assigned and further... The player will receive par plus four for every hole that the playing group has either completed or finished teeing on.


This rule was added specifically to close a loophole in the rules. Long story short -

Experienced player arrived just before the start of the round. Player discovered they were on a hole across the course and realized they would be late by the time they got to the starting hole. Player decided to join the closest card and played the round with that group.

The player contended that he should only receive a two stroke penalty for the misplay of incorrect order. He received the benefit of the doubt and now the loophole has been closed. Going forward, if a player starts with the wrong group, they will get par plus 4 until they join proper group, or face disqualification if they remain.

With this in mind, the "Par plus 4" for any completed misplay seems like common sense.

1.05 F. Late-arriving players, for either Shotgun or Tee Time rounds, are responsible
for checking with the TD, Tournament Central, or the Tee Time Starter to learn
their correct starting group and are solely responsible for starting play with that
playing group or the group created by the TD due to the player's absence.
The player will receive the par plus four score for each hole that the playing
group has either completed or finished teeing on. Playing with any other group
constitutes an attempt to gain a competitive advantage and is a disqualification.

 

[Steve West]

...But I'll give you another reason: practice throws. If you leave out the "whichever is greater" suggestion, the player may get to take additional throws that are not counted toward his score. A worthy consideration? Worth additional complexity? I don't know. Should practice throws be penalized?

A worthy consideration. Since we don't count the throws made when a player plays an entire extra hole as practice throws, I don't think we would need to here.

 

[flamfive]

Would par plus 4 have a chance to actually lower a players score if the opposite happened? Say the Int player incorrectly played the hole as a par 5 while on an advanced card, instead of the par 3. People were saying the par 5 was challenging and had OB. Lets say the Int player makes multiple throws OB and takes a very high score like a 9. Since the Int field was playing a par three, would his score then be lowered to 7 under the par plus 4 rule?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Would par plus 4 have a chance to actually lower a players score if the opposite happened? Say the Int player incorrectly played the hole as a par 5 while on an advanced card, instead of the par 3. People were saying the par 5 was challenging and had OB. Lets say the Int player makes multiple throws OB and takes a very high score like a 9. Since the Int field was playing a par three, would his score then be lowered to 7 under the par plus 4 rule?

So they card a 9 on a Par 5... that they weren't supposed to play.
Under the Par + 4 scenario, it turns to a 7... so they end up 2 strokes better than their 9.

I guess you could say that they'd benefit if that were the rule. If most players scored 3's on that hole, they'd still be losing strokes to the field... but not as many as what they actually played.

If it's a "tough par 3" where lots of players in card 4's, and even 5's, and there's OB, it's feasible someone got a 5 + 1 penalty = 6, and this player ends up only 1 behind for that hole. Perhaps not perfect, but I think that's OK. They didn't gain ground on someone who played the hole poorly (but correctly).

I don't think playing a single hole incorrectly should be so punitive that it completely knocks you out of the top spots if you genuinely light up the rest of the course, and do that much better than the field. *cough/bagger*

The key is assigning par properly.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Would par plus 4 have a chance to actually lower a players score if the opposite happened? . . .

One of the things to keep in mind is that someone who plays the wrong hole has done something different than their competition. Ideally, the wrongly played hole should not count as part of the players score. There's no reason that it should since everyone should have to play the same course. Comparing the scores of people who play different holes or different courses makes no sense in competition. Thus, the "score" on an incorrect hole should not be considered part of the players score for the tournament.

I suggest (and argue) that a par plus four penalty should not be viewed in comparison to the score entered for a hole that isn't part of the tournament. Instead, it should be viewed just as if the player showed up late and missed the hole altogether. There's really no difference. In neither case did the player actually play the hole they were supposed to and, as a result, they got a pretty severe penalty.

When viewed in this way, the penalty has no chance of "lower[ing] the player's score" because whatever throws were made on a hole that isn't part of the tournament course do not make up part of the player's tournament score.

The only score-related "what if" would be to ask, "What if the player had played the correct hole and made a score worse than par+4?" This same question can be asked about a late arrival who missed a hole. But no one really cares about the answer.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

^ Wish I said that.

 

[araytx]

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.

I've seen a lot of comments, and though I read through them all rather quickly (hopefully not missing this), I was surprised to see no one taking the position, that the "advanced grandmaster" violated Comp Manual 3.03.F.3. (not 2). Since his last throw on that hole was "in" the incorrect basket and the correct one was still further down the fairway, why couldn't it be considered NOT COMPLETING the hole? And if so, by 3.03 F.3. the penalty is one throw for non-completion, plus two for misplay, giving him a 6 on this hole. This answer might solve all of the issue ESPECIALLY if the TD announces during the player meeting while he's going over who's playing which baskets, that "...playing to the short basket on this hole is going to cost you three strokes per 3.03 F.3. - Look it up."

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.

What do you think of my option above?

 

[Discette]

I've seen a lot of comments, and though I read through them all rather quickly (hopefully not missing this), I was surprised to see no one taking the position, that the "advanced grandmaster" violated Comp Manual 3.03.F.3. (not 2). Since his last throw on that hole was "in" the incorrect basket and the correct one was still further down the fairway, why couldn't it be considered NOT COMPLETING the hole? And if so, by 3.03 F.3. the penalty is one throw for non-completion, plus two for misplay, giving him a 6 on this hole. This answer might solve all of the issue ESPECIALLY if the TD announces during the player meeting while he's going over who's playing which baskets, that "...playing to the short basket on this hole is going to cost you three strokes per 3.03 F.3. - Look it up."


What do you think of my option above?

I think you meant 811.F.3 in th Rule Book. (I am unable to find 3.03.F.3 in the 2018 Competition Manual.)


811. F.2 is specifically written for misplay of the Wrong Target, which is what happened. To use another rule when one rule already specifically exists for the situation seems - not appropriate.

 

[Steve West]

why couldn't it be considered NOT COMPLETING the hole?..

Better question: Why shouldn't NOT completing the hole be par plus 4, too?

Also, https://www.pdga.com/rules/competition-manual/303

 

[araytx]

I think you meant 811.F.3 in th Rule Book. (I am unable to find 3.03.F.3 in the 2018 Competition Manual.)


811. F.2 is specifically written for misplay of the Wrong Target, which is what happened. To use another rule when one rule already specifically exists for the situation seems - not appropriate.

Yes, I meant 811 F. 3. in the new (current) rule book

Better question: Why shouldn't NOT completing the hole be par plus 4, too?

Also, https://www.pdga.com/rules/competition-manual/303

Personally I like it. I was only trying to stay within existing rules and provide a more appropriate punishment.

 

[Karl]

I've seen a lot of comments, and though I read through them all rather quickly (hopefully not missing this), I was surprised to see no one taking the position, that the "advanced grandmaster" violated Comp Manual 3.03.F.3. (not 2). Since his last throw on that hole was "in" the incorrect basket and the correct one was still further down the fairway, why couldn't it be considered NOT COMPLETING the hole? And if so, by 3.03 F.3. the penalty is one throw for non-completion, plus two for misplay, giving him a 6 on this hole. This answer might solve all of the issue ESPECIALLY if the TD announces during the player meeting while he's going over who's playing which baskets, that "...playing to the short basket on this hole is going to cost you three strokes per 3.03 F.3. - Look it up."





What do you think of my option above?

I think that if several different logically-thinking people (at least for THIS thread ) can come up with several logical ways of trying to determining a "just penalty" for this situation, the rule DEFINITELY needs to be looked at (and probably changed)!

Proviso: Haven't taken the time (as Discette has) to try to find said source, etc.

 

[araytx]

I think that if several different logically-thinking people (at least for THIS thread ) can come up with several logical ways of trying to determining a "just penalty" for this situation, the rule DEFINITELY needs to be looked at (and probably changed)!

....

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.