Your most recent provisional?

[sidewinder22]

That looks like 11 to me.

1- Throw from tee
2 - Disc was OB
3 - throw from last place in bounds (start of misplay sequence #1)
4 - throw again (whether or not he holed does not matter).
5,6 - Misplay sequence now commited, player should continue this sequence. and next throw is where this throw came to rest.
7 - throws from DZ (start misplay sequence #2 as he should have continued from where his last lie was)
8 - throws approach
9,10- misplay sequence #2 now committed. 2 throw penalty. Carry on with the sequence as player is committed to it.
11 - finish the hole.

I do not see any optional rethrows at all as none of these are cases where the previous lie was used for the next throw.

Triple jeopardy! :thmbdown:

You are counting the misplay throws as throws or practice throws, plus 2 misplay 2-throw penalties. If there is a misplay, those throws are disregarded and a penalty is applied and the correct previous lie is and always has been the drop zone, or the player may continue the misplay lie(incorrect lie). A misplay can not be a correct lie ever. A misplay is a misplay. You can not misplay the hole twice.

 

[Lazerface]

This happened maybe 3 years ago at my local A-Tier.

First Problem: There was no players meeting before this round. We were playing multiple courses and they spread divisions across 4 or 5, so each course required some sort of TD/Assistant TD to host a players meeting before the round. I was actually at tourney central when they called the players in. Maybe 6 or 7 guys of the 75 or so in MPO showed up to the meeting. The Course TD basically said, "well, no point in a players meeting since nobody showed up (huge mistake). Do you guys have any questions? Nobody did, so we all went out to our holes. I was local and knew the course well.

We then come to a hole with a mandatory "pole" that is in place to prevent players from throwing over the road. It's been there since the course was put in and is always in play. The 4 of us discussed it prior to throwing the hole. It was not in the caddy book and a guy from out of town noticed. We all assured him it was in play. I missed the mando like a chump. Out of town guy also missed the mando. He was also up at tournament central when they decided not to have a players meeting. So even though the pole exists, and a drop zone next to it is spray painted, and we talked about the damn thing before playing the hole he decides to argue that it is not in play. He has a point of course, but the guys on our card, including me, are giving him the "come on man" speech. He demands to play a provisional and even though I hate it, I have to back him because of the whole caddy book and lack of players meeting thing. I told the guys we will just play it out and ask the TD, so everyone agreed. Now I'm sitting there - also missed the mando, and this guy is playing a provisional, so I feel like I have to as well. It's a simple up and down from the drop zone and we both park it. He then makes a nice putt for a 2 from his original lie. Keep in mind this guy was really whining and rubbing the card the wrong way and I was playing with guys I knew and considered friends. My original drive is inside of 20 feet and I kept thinking if I make this, and he gets his way, then I have to live with the fact that I "cheated" (in my eyes). I went ahead and 3 putted so I my score is a 4 either way.

This guy kept talking about it until my buddy told him to shut up about it until the round was over and we would get with the TD. He was basically trying to sell the card on it in hopes he would win the argument after the round.

We approached the TD, and explained the situation. The TD was like, "So it was announced a mando before you threw it?" He said yes. "And you are arguing not to play it". He gave the speech. The TD called someone with the PDGA as we are all sitting there and they made a ruling in like 10 seconds and said something to the effect of his card mates announcing it was enough and he would take the 4. I seriously thought he was going to cry. I think he said he would "petition the ruling".

 

[krupicka]

Sidewinder, I'm sorry you don't like it, but that is how the rules are written.

 

[sidewinder22]

You cannot take an optional re-throw after you have continued playing from the first throw.

See below...

A player may elect at any time to re-throw from the previous lie. The original throw plus one penalty throw shall be counted in the player's score.

---------------------------------------------------

And as the player never played from the dropzone, it cannot be the previous lie from where to take an optional re-throw.

The misplay with subsequent throws is a series from what should have been and always still is the correct previous lie regardless of how many throws. You can not misplay a misplay.

If no subsequent throws have been made after the misplayed throw, the player shall continue play from the correct lie[drop zone] and be assessed a one-throw penalty for the misplay.

---------------------------------------------------

If "shall" is only a suggestion, where is the alternative described in the rules? Where do you read other options? And what other options do the player have, after discovering the misplay without making additional throws?

See above Optional Re-throw.

The rules "suggest" (by your definition) that the player proceeds to play from the correct lie, but as it is only a suggestion, according you you, what is his alternative, apart from optional re-throw, which is always an option on any throw?

It does not state anywhere in the rules that a misplay is ever the correct lie, but it does state that the drop zone would be the correct lie for the first misplay or series of throws from the OG misplay. The alternative to Re-throw from the correct previous lie is to continue the misplay from the series of the OG misplay with a two stroke penalty.

If no subsequent throws have been made after the misplayed throw, the player shall continue play from the correct lie[drop zone] and be assessed a one-throw penalty for the misplay.

If an additional throw or throws have been made after the misplayed throw, the player shall complete the hole being played and be assessed a two-throw penalty for the misplay.

 

[sidewinder22]

Sidewinder, I'm sorry you don't like it, but that is how the rules are written.

I never said I don't like the way they are written. You apparently don't like it, nor do you apparently know how to properly apply the penalty.

 

[krupicka]

I never said I don't like the way they are written. You apparently don't like it, nor do you apparently know how to properly apply the penalty.

My mistake. I assumed that since you were so adamantly trying to interpret the rules contrary to generally accepted practices and guidance from the Rules Committee that you must not have like them.

 

[sidewinder22]

My mistake. I assumed that since you were so adamantly trying to interpret the rules contrary to generally accepted practices and guidance from the Rules Committee that you must not have like them.

Just because something is generally accepted, doesn't make it correct. I got the backing of the Supreme Court and nearly every jurisdiction.

In standards work, shall is used to indicate a requirement while should is use to indicate something that is recommended. Of course some on the RC want to get rid of shall/should in a future rules update (which IMHO is a bad idea). Not sure how Sidewinder can come up with shall being just a suggestion.

Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall. "Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."Sep 5, 2013

 

[sidewinder22]

Anybody else want to count a score on this scenario?

This could actually happen:
1. Throws OB off tee. *Where there is a mandatory drop zone*
2. Throws from last IB.
3. Throws again without holing out. *Realizes there is a mandatory drop zone*
4. Now throws from mandatory drop zone.
5. Throw approach.
6. Putts out and correctly played the hole.


SW22 counts 7.
JC counts 9.
krupicka counts 11.

 

[Steve West]

5 if they play last point IB provisionally.

 

[Mocheez]

If they called provisional prior to #2, then a 5. If they didn't call provisional before #2, then a 7.

 

[teemkey]

Anybody else want to count a score on this scenario?

This could actually happen:
1. Throws OB off tee. *Where there is a mandatory drop zone*
2. Throws from last IB.
3. Throws again without holing out. *Realizes there is a mandatory drop zone*
4. Now throws from mandatory drop zone.
5. Throw approach.
6. Putts out and correctly played the hole.


SW22 counts 7.
JC counts 9.
krupicka counts 11.

Was the mando drop zone clearly noted in the caddie book (if any) and/or announced at the player's meeting?

That is, should the player (and card mates) be aware that a mando drop zone existed on the hole?

 

[sidewinder22]

Was the mando drop zone clearly noted in the caddie book (if any) and/or announced at the player's meeting?

That is, should the player (and card mates) be aware that a mando drop zone existed on the hole?

I would think so since the player realizes there is a mandatory drop zone.

But hey, this is such a fun loving crowd here in the rules questions and discussion forum, so go ahead play out both possible scenarios....

 

[sidewinder22]

New scenario:
1. Player tees into thick rough, not OB.
2. Player throws again further into rough, not OB.
3. Player elects to take Optional Re-throw from tee and throws.
4. Player makes putt.

 

[Steve West]

New scenario:
1. Player tees into thick rough, not OB.
2. Player throws again further into rough, not OB.
3. Player elects to take Optional Re-throw from tee and throws.
4. Player makes putt.

Possible DQ.

803.03 Misplay

F. A player who deliberately misplays the course to gain competitive advantage shall be penalized in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Competition Manual.

Optional re-throw only takes you back to the lie you just threw from. THE previous lie, not ANY previous lie. THE original throw, not ALL original throws.

803.02 Optional Relief and Optional Re-throw

B. Optional Re-throw. A player may elect at any time to re-throw from the previous lie. The original throw plus one penalty throw shall be counted in the player's score.

 

[sidewinder22]

Possible DQ.


Optional re-throw only takes you back to the lie you just threw from. THE previous lie, not ANY previous lie. THE original throw, not ALL original throws.

Disagree, it states that "at any time" the player may re-throw from the previous lie. Once upon a or any time the previous lie was the tee.

 

[Steve West]

Disagree, it states that "at any time" the player may re-throw from the previous lie. Once upon a or any time the previous lie was the tee.

What does the lie being the tee have to do with it?

 

[sidewinder22]

What does the lie being the tee have to do with it?

Choosing "at any time" the previous lie is the tee.

 

[Steve West]

Choosing "at any time" the previous lie is the tee.

That's not even close enough to the rules to be called wrong.

 

[sidewinder22]

That's not even close enough to the rules to be called wrong.

You are wrong for not allowing the player to choose to re-throw from the previous lie "at any time" then.

 

[sidewinder22]

You are wrong. Pure an simple. Accept it.

If there is a designated dropzone to a mandatory, then that is the only lie the player can choose as a result of the missed mando.

In adition, a player ALWAYS has the option to abandon the previous throw and re-throw with penalty. For OB. re-throw from previous lie is an option directly written in, for a missed mando it is not.

A designated drop zone for a missed mandatory, is not a mandatory drop zone.

A player can choose to tin cup from the previous lie for a missed mandatory.