2023 Des Moines Challenge

[foxdawg10]

THEN WHY THE DUCK DIDNT YOUR SMART ASS ACTUALLY ENGAGE THE CONTENT OF MY POST AND TELL ME HOW I WAS WRONG DAYS AGO.

You were so ****ing eager to get to say "you're wrong" that you decided to avoid being helpful and actually engaging with my argument at all. If you had any capability of doing that, then **** you for choosing not to just to be as big a dick as possible and push this all on for days.

It wasn't any work AT ALL for Steve to actually engage with the content of what I said and point out where the flaw in my logic existed. You had no interest in any of that.

That tells me you refused to read any of my posts. You are exhausting and needy. Holy hell.

 

[ChrisWoj]

That tells me you refused to read any of my posts. You are exhausting and needy. Holy hell.

You literally admitted to refusing to engage the content of my posts because I wouldn't admit to being wrong immediately after I admitted I was wrong to the first person that engaged the content of my posts.

**** earlier in the thread you demonstrated that you literally had no idea what we were talking about. You were here for one purpose: to try to pile on me. You had no interest whatsoever in any form of discourse.

 

[Steve West]

An apology for wasting our time and energy would be nice, but I suppose I will be happy with an admission you were wrong.

We have all been telling you that you were wrong for days, but I'm glad something finally clicked with you. The reason we didn't engage you is that it was painfully obvious from the beginning you just wanted to argue, and I refuse to entertain that.

I started this with the hope that the rules would be tested; to see if they are misunderstood or could be interpreted in ways that were different than the intent. All this discussion was the point of the exercise. Even if there was ultimately not enough support for that interpretation, it was close enough to justify the close examination.

So, thanks everybody.

 

[Cgkdisc]

One thing discovered with this incident is the RC should perhaps allow groups to call an official timeout for a rules check or a call to an official/TD that temporarily freezes the 30-second clock for the next thrower. GB had been warned and eventually called for delay of game earlier this year and was on camera in this incident. He would naturally be gun-shy about getting called on another violation for taking time to look up the rule which was actually in the QA and harder to find.

Being able to call official timeouts might result in fewer provisionals being called, especially those that aren't allowed anyway. The 801.03 Appeals rule implies a timeout can be called but perhaps it needs to be emphasized as the first option before calling a provisional which has been the go-to mantra at big event player meetings.

 

[txmxer]

Good background information from Steve and Chuck. The self regulated aspect of this sport is a challenge. We experience it locally and with video we see it at the top level of the sport.

It's even in the rules—it is not personal.

 

[BillFleming]

One thing discovered with this incident is the RC should perhaps allow groups to call an official timeout for a rules check or a call to an official/TD that temporarily freezes the 30-second clock for the next thrower. GB had been warned and eventually called for delay of game earlier this year and was on camera in this incident. He would naturally be gun-shy about getting called on another violation for taking time to look up the rule which was actually in the QA and harder to find.

Being able to call official timeouts might result in fewer provisionals being called, especially those that aren't allowed anyway. The 801.03 Appeals rule implies a timeout can be called but perhaps it needs to be emphasized as the first option before calling a provisional which has been the go-to mantra at big event player meetings.

I was surprised when I checked the rule book....unless I am missing it somewhere....there's no statement about the clock "pausing" while rules are discussed. And, yet, it happens all the time....how can a group decide on a call without taking more than 30 seconds after arriving at the lie? (OB is different as until you determine where the disc went OB, you have not arrived at the lie). I do think the rules book needs a statement that discussion of the rules 'pauses' the 30 second throw clock.

 

[Steve West]

I was surprised when I checked the rule book....unless I am missing it somewhere....there's no statement about the clock "pausing" while rules are discussed. And, yet, it happens all the time....how can a group decide on a call without taking more than 30 seconds after arriving at the lie? (OB is different as until you determine where the disc went OB, you have not arrived at the lie). I do think the rules book needs a statement that discussion of the rules 'pauses' the 30 second throw clock.

In every case where provisional throws would be allowed, there would be two different lies. As such, the lie is not determined until after they decide whether they can make provisional throws, and where the lies would be if they did. So, the time for discussion comes out of the "After they have had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie" time which does not count against the 30 seconds.

 

[Steve West]

I forgot to add that in most of the other rules discussions (e.g. is it OB?) the lie is not determined until the ruling is resolved. So, those also don't count against the 30 seconds.

 

[glassila]

I wonder if the players have phone numbers for the TD and/or on site officials so when a rule question comes up they can call someone instead of "looking" for an official.
It wouldn't be too expensive or complicated for the PDGA to have 4 or 5 officials phones that travel from one event to another...I am only talking about pro tour events.

The downside of this is that players will be less likely to learn the rules themselves.:doh:

 

[txmxer]

I wonder if the players have phone numbers for the TD and/or on site officials so when a rule question comes up they can call someone instead of "looking" for an official.
It wouldn't be too expensive or complicated for the PDGA to have 4 or 5 officials phones that travel from one event to another...I am only talking about pro tour events.

The downside of this is that players will be less likely to learn the rules themselves.:doh:

I would prefer that TDs learn from this and make a point that players should know the rules.

Speaking specifically about DGPT.

Of course it's true at all levels, but being a professional should put additional onus on the players.

 

[chevis]

Saying "the lie is different" is not the same as saying "there are different lies".

In fact, saying "the lie is different" means there is only one lie, not two. The rule uses the plural "lies".

If you paint a house, the house is different, but there aren't different houses.

i'm mostly convinced there are not different lies if you move an obstacle.
since tx made a new thread for provisional throw, i'm posting a related hypothetical there

 

[Cgkdisc]

i'm mostly convinced there are not different lies if you move an obstacle.
since tx made a new thread for provisional throw, i'm posting a related hypothetical there

From a practical standpoint, every time your disc lands on the playing surface, there are different lies that could be marked depending on whether you play from behind your thrown disc or mark it with a mini. In cases where you land IB within a meter of OB, you can place your marker within a 1-meter range from it. I'm not sure how the RC could improve the definition for "different lies" with regard to taking provisionals but here's where confusion may continue.