Ledgestone Insurance Open

[tom12003]

I keep saying this because I didn't hear what he said. All I am going on is what I saw and what's been posted.

If he in fact knew that he was supposed to go to the drop zone but didn't want to

Many holes I didn't want to throw from the lie.

 

[JC17393]

Says who?? Justification, please. Because I don't see it in 804.06

804.06 B (2) To appeal the group's or an official's ruling. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when the player disagrees with the group decision and an official is not readily available, or if the player wishes to appeal the decision of an official. The scores from both sets of throws shall be recorded. The proper ruling and score are then determined by the Director at the end of the round.​

If he was unsure of where to go (apparently he wasn't, but I was arguing based on the idea that he was) and disagreed with the group's decision as to where he should go, he's entitled to play out from both spots, record both scores, and have the TD rule after the fact. That his attempt to do so was interrupted by the arrival of an official that rendered a decision before that process was completed doesn't mean the player wasn't still entitled to that process.

 

[tom12003]

GO NATE, you can do this!

 

[Steve West]

I keep saying this because I didn't hear what he said. All I am going on is what I saw and what's been posted.

If he in fact knew that he was supposed to go to the drop zone but didn't want to, then there's no provisional to call. You can't provisionally throw an optional re-throw, so he threw an optional re-throw whether he wanted to or not and it should have been counted (with the additional OB penalty).

The TDs got it wrong if that's what happened.

Of course you can call a provisional optional re-throw. As long as you say "this will be my optional re-throw under xyz conditions". (And xyz are legal conditions.) Hence, the need for the word "subsequently".

 

[BionicRib]

I bet the ruling will change. 2 more strokes for mcbeth

 

[JC17393]

Of course you can call a provisional optional re-throw. As long as you say "this will be my optional re-throw under xyz conditions". (And xyz are legal conditions.) Hence, the need for the word "subsequently".

804.06.B.1. lists three conditions for throwing a provisional that isn't pursuant to settling a disputed ruling...
A. The status of a disc cannot readily be determined; and,
B. The majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time; and,
C. The original throw may be out-of-bounds, may be lost, or may have missed a mandatory.

Your "xyz conditions" would have to fall under some part of the rule above. If they do then re-throw isn't optional, it's because the rule (OB, lost, missed mando) calls for a re-throw.

 

[Steve West]

Why was there a question of not going to the drop zone after his initial drive? I'm lost on how the rethrow option can negate his first OB throw.

The re-throw option negates everything that happened on the original throw. That's its purpose in life.

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.

 

[Steve West]

804.06.B.1. lists three conditions for throwing a provisional that isn't pursuant to settling a disputed ruling...
A. The status of a disc cannot readily be determined; and,
B. The majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time; and,
C. The original throw may be out-of-bounds, may be lost, or may have missed a mandatory.

Your "xyz conditions" would have to fall under some part of the rule above. If they do then re-throw isn't optional, it's because the rule (OB, lost, missed mando) calls for a re-throw.

Second sentence of 804.06 A also allows for "I'll play this lie if it is correct, otherwise that lie."

A. Provisional throws are extra throws that are not added to a player's score if they are not ultimately used in the completion of the hole. The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a player's lie and a provisional throw would expedite play, or when the thrower questions a ruling. The unused throws are not to be added to the thrower's score nor treated as practice throws as long as the player announces that such additional throws are provisional throws prior to making them.

In this case, if Paul was allowed to re-tee he would have made the choice to re-tee which would make his correct lie the tee. Otherwise, the drop zone.

 

[tom12003]

Re-throw option is dumb in this case. When I rethrow after an OB throw and I again throw OB, I'm on my fifth throw from the drop zone or another third retee.

 

[araytx]

That's not the question though. The question is whether he was supposed to re-tee or go to the drop zone. If there is doubt about that, a provisional is EXACTLY what the player should do. Better that than getting it wrong and taking a misplay penalty like Paul did just a week ago at Worlds.

There was no question about that. It was clear Paul knew the next lie was the drop zone after the OB. He wanted to re-tee.

804.06 B (2) To appeal the group's or an official's ruling. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when the player disagrees with the group decision and an official is not readily available, or if the player wishes to appeal the decision of an official. The scores from both sets of throws shall be recorded. The proper ruling and score are then determined by the Director at the end of the round.​

If he was unsure of where to go (apparently he wasn't, but I was arguing based on the idea that he was) and disagreed with the group's decision as to where he should go, he's entitled to play out from both spots, record both scores, and have the TD rule after the fact. That his attempt to do so was interrupted by the arrival of an official that rendered a decision before that process was completed doesn't mean the player wasn't still entitled to that process.

I respect your opinions, especially on the rules thread JC, but, in this case there was no card decision or officials decision to appeal. At least not yet (at the time he called provisional). That's my problem with trying to use 804.06 B.2. to justify. This is one of the problems with self-officiating. When a respected player says something is an option, it tends to carry more weight. Do you think the conversation would be exactly the same with the same level of co-operativeness, if Paul would have parked or even aced the re-tee? Your guess is as good as mine. There was nothing "unsure" about Paul not knowing which spot he was to throw from.

This is ALSO a problem with a course/tourney having all these different OB rules on the various holes. A player can say "I'm confused" and then all kinds of issues may occur. Especially a tourney that's allowed to utilized throw & distance on some holes. I still don't find anything ambiguous about 803.02B.

He wasn't declaring it an optional re-throw. He took the provisional because he was unsure if he had to throw it or proceed straight to the drop zone.

It would seem that Nikko was arguing that what Paul did was an optional re-throw that had to count. That wasn't what Paul did, however. I can't see how Paul would have wanted to re-throw if he didn't have to. It's not as though the re-throw was more advantageous than simply going to the drop zone. The provisional was due to thinking it was required of him.

But he did. It was obvious the way things went down, that Paul felt it was easier to access the green from the teebox (for eagle) than from the drop zone. He asked if he could re-tee. He wanted to re-tee RATHER THAN throw from the DZ. Then someone in his "posse" said, "call a provisional" so he did.

I keep saying this because I didn't hear what he said. All I am going on is what I saw and what's been posted.

If he in fact knew that he was supposed to go to the drop zone but didn't want to, then there's no provisional to call. You can't provisionally throw an optional re-throw, so he threw an optional re-throw whether he wanted to or not and it should have been counted (with the additional OB penalty).

The TDs got it wrong if that's what happened.

Now you're on the right track. Someone on the card should have said, "yes, you can re-tee because you always can." And when he called "provisional" the cardmates should have disallowed the provisional. Paul didn't have justification for a provisional. The card should have ruled him out-of bounds and his next lie is the drop zone. Then if Paul decides he'd prefer to re-tee (because that's what he wanted to do), then they should have said, "OK if that's your optional re-throw." The problem occurred because no one said not to disallow it. And Steve and the others are right -- you can't rule a called "provisional" to be an optional re-throw after the fact.

 

[AndyJB]

Im not watching the live feed because it's boring, but now I'm regretting it, as this sounds quite the opposite.

 

[Steve West]

Now you're on the right track. Someone on the card should have said, "yes, you can re-tee because you always can." And when he called "provisional" the cardmates should have disallowed the provisional. Paul didn't have justification for a provisional. The card should have ruled him out-of bounds and his next lie is the drop zone. Then if Paul decides he'd prefer to re-tee (because that's what he wanted to do), then they should have said, "OK if that's your optional re-throw." The problem occurred because no one said not to disallow it. And Steve and the others are right -- you can't rule a called "provisional" to be an optional re-throw after the fact.

So, when they told Paul he can't call a provisional because they were certain he could re-tee, and he re-teed, and then the TD told him he did not have the right to re-tee (which the TD actually did), then what?


Fortunately, to prevent the kind of messed-up situation you just created, the rest of his card can't "deny" Paul a provisional when Paul is not sure whether he can play the lie he wants or another lie.

 

[cheese dog]

how many people will play that hole, 1000? he was the only one to re tee.

 

[JC17393]

Aray, I feel the need to point out that you're quoting my posts out of order, which makes my arguments a lot more disjointed than they were. My understanding of what happened changed as details emerged.

Based on the most current information, McBeth should have never been granted a provisional in that situation. He was unquestionably OB and everyone involved, including himself, seemed to know that the course rules called for the next throw to be from the drop zone. To re-tee at that point required an optional re-throw that can not be done provisionally. It would seem he is deserving of two more throws added to his score on that hole (the re-throw and the OB penalty that resulted).

The TD/official got it wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised he got it wrong based on incorrect or incomplete information (just like I did).

 

[araytx]

So, when they told Paul he can't call a provisional because they were certain he could re-tee, and he re-teed, and then the TD told him he did not have the right to re-tee (which the TD actually did), then what?


Fortunately, to prevent the kind of messed-up situation you just created, the rest of his card can't "deny" Paul a provisional when Paul is not sure whether he can play the lie he wants or another lie.

Yes, I agree that if Paul insisted they had to basically let him. BUT once he did, they should have made him play it out both ways. This issue complicated matters. Whomever told him not to play out his provisional was also very very wrong. Once you call a provisional you play it out both ways, and the decision can come from the TD at the end of the round. This was they're stuck with the TD's incorrect on the spot ruling. Even if the TD were to rule then or later it should have been played out all the way. If they had the TD might later today realize he was wrong and make a correct ruling. But he can't now.

 

[Steve West]

Yes, I agree that if Paul insisted they had to basically let him. BUT once he did, they should have made him play it out both ways. This issue complicated matters. Whomever told him not to play out his provisional was also very very wrong. Once you call a provisional you play it out both ways, and the decision can come from the TD at the end of the round. This was they're stuck with the TD's incorrect on the spot ruling. Even if the TD were to rule then or later it should have been played out all the way. If they had the TD might later today realize he was wrong and make a correct ruling. But he can't now.

By very very wrong, do you mean there is a rule that requires he complete the hole from both sets of provisionals even if one set has already been ruled out by the TD, or that it would have been a good idea?

On what grounds do you think the TD was wrong?

CAN a TD be wrong?

 

[Steve West]

..To re-tee at that point required an optional re-throw that can not be done provisionally...

Prove the underlined.

 

[JC17393]

Prove the underlined.

I already did. Provisionals to save time have to meet the criteria as listed in 804.06.B.1. Optional re-throw is not among the listed criteria. Choosing to throw an optional re-throw over-rules whether the previous throw is OB or not, whether it is lost or not, or whether it missed a mando or not. What would the criteria be to prompt a provisional optional re-throw and what would be the objective determination over whether to play from the original throw or the re-throw?

An optional re-throw is not a recourse for a rules dispute either. You are never disallowed from throwing one, so one should never be in doubt as to whether one is allowed to be thrown.

 

[araytx]

Yes, I agree that if Paul insisted they had to basically let him. BUT once he did, they should have made him play it out both ways. This issue complicated matters. Whomever told him not to play out his provisional was also very very wrong. Once you call a provisional you play it out both ways, and the decision can come from the TD at the end of the round. This was they're stuck with the TD's incorrect on the spot ruling. Even if the TD were to rule then or later it should have been played out all the way. If they had the TD might later today realize he was wrong and make a correct ruling. But he can't now.

JC, I'm sorry about that. I think I was taking one or two comments at a time, and it was only later that I realized you didn't have all the info. Apologies coming your way. Now that you do have it all, I see that you see it pretty much what I see.

By very very wrong, do you mean there is a rule that requires he complete the hole from both sets of provisionals even if one set has already been ruled out by the TD, or that it would have been a good idea?

On what grounds do you think the TD was wrong?

CAN a TD be wrong?

We are drifting off the OP, so I'm going to start a new thread to discuss that last question and related parts. If you feel it's worthy come on over to "Can a TD be wrong?" in a few minutes

 

[AndyJB]

You could give Paul those two throws on his score and he'd still be kicking butt. Wonder if losing Worlds lit a fire under him? Again, not watching the live feed so I don't know how he's playing specifically but obviously he's atop the leaderboard. And Chris Dickerson is still hanging up there in the top five!