krupicka
Double Eagle Member
Exactly. When I raised that point at the rules update, some didn't see as requiring a rethrow to be a "penalty" as it didn't cost any strokes.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Clarity on potential oddball tourney scenario
- Thread starter Pwingles
- Start date
TheArnoldPalmer
Eagle Member
:thmbup:
I've been saying this since day one. Mostly I've been told that it's a hypothetical scenario. Considering the other hypothetical scenario of calling a stance violation on one self, "required" a rule change, so you couldn't call or second violations on yourself, eliminating the need for a second partly circumvented that change.
Off on the wildly unlikely hypothetical, but if I'm in your group and you ace a hole, can I call a footfault---completely without merit---and invalidate the ace?
Sure, I'll probably get beat to a pulp, and on appeal to the TD be overturned on the simple grounds that I was being a jerk. But, in the meantime, isn't the actual wording of the rule on my side?
Sure, I'll probably get beat to a pulp, and on appeal to the TD be overturned on the simple grounds that I was being a jerk. But, in the meantime, isn't the actual wording of the rule on my side?
Yes it is.
I think there are only two things preventing phantom foot fault calls such as that from being a more prevalent thing. One being that not only will 99.9% of TDs overturn the call on appeal if the rest of the group confirms it was shenanigans, but the player making the bogus call could be subject to disqualification for unsportsmanlike conduct. Two being that a good number of players don't know the rules well enough to even know that this is something they could potentially exploit for head game purposes.
I'll let everyone else decide which of those two options is more at play.
801.01b "Players are expected to call a violation when one has clearly occurred. Calls must be made promptly."
That would be the main thing preventing that type of abuse.
If you call me on a foot fault after my disc is in the basket, I'm going to tell you that you did not call it promptly and ignore your call. Sadly "promptly" is not well defined, but my personal view is if you wait to see the outcome of a throw before you call it, your call was not prompt and is not valid.
Sorry, buddy, you don't have that right; and, unless and until the PDGA restores a time limit, you don't even have that option.
10, 15 seconds isn't prompt?
I'd counter that the PDGA removed the time limit specifically to allow more than a few seconds to make a call, with the interest in getting it right over getting it quick.
I'd counter that the PDGA removed the time limit specifically to allow more than a few seconds to make a call, with the interest in getting it right over getting it quick.
I disagree. Furthermore I would say you don't have the right to wait to see the outcome of my shot before you decide whether or not to call a foot fault. I don't see a valid reason why something like that wouldn't be called immediately, but I definitely see how it could be abused if it's not. Ask yourself whats more fair in that situation. That's why those two sentences are in the rule book. It states explicitly that if you see a foot fault you must call it, and that you must call it promptly. There is no decision to make about whether or not you want to/should call it, and you can't wait and see what happens before you call it.
Go back and read David Saul's post about the PDGA removing the time limit.
Then read it again.
Then read it once more for comprehension.
The rules allow TDs to adjust scores to reflect up the correct interpretation of the rules until the tournament is declared to be officially over. If you think a call is bogus, you can stand aside and seek the TD's or an official's ruling or to play a provisional and let the TD sort it out after the round. But you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have the right to simply ignore a validly made call, even if you think the call is bogus.
I agree completely. In fact, that's the point. If you wait to see the outcome of my shot before you decide whether or not to make a call then it is not a validly made call.
Sigh.
A VALIDLY MADE call is a call made following the prescribed procedure for making the call. In the case of a stance violation, the technical procedure is simply that someone makes a stance violation call in the first instance of a stance violation, and that the call is made and seconded for subsequent violations.
Clearly, you did't bother attempting to read and comprehend David Saul's post.
A VALIDLY MADE call is a call that conforms to the specified procedure for making a call, without regard to whether the call is correct or erroneous.
A VALID CALL is a call that meets all the specified criteria to be enforceable.
You can dispute whether the call is VALID, but unless you can demonstrate that the MANNER IN WHICH the person made the call did not follow the prescribed procedure, the call is validly made.
There is NOTHING in the rule that requires a call be made within a specified time period to be considered valid. Given that the 2013 rules revision specifically REMOVED the previously existing 3 second time limit from the validating criteria and that the Rules Committee has refused to define or otherwise specify a time- or event-based limit of any sort on what constitutes "promptly," you have neither the right nor the freedom to employ an artificial, time-based criterion such as "knowing the outcome of a throw" as an excuse to ignore a call.
teemkey
* Ace Member *
The player has a 10' putt but his lie is on an extreme down slope. He cans it, but he's off balance, arms flailing ... and he falls forward.
I dont really agree with Trey, but I think the bolded sorta contradicts the meaning of what a valid call would be.
If its made in error, why would it be valid? Why should it be? Wouldnt the point of playing by a set of rules be to correctly enforce them?
@Trey, imo, teh spirit of the rule is for the outcome to be a non factor in the call of the infraction. However, I will concede that its not usually applied that way
To play devil's advocate a bit, you're not waiting for the outcome of the throw in that case, you're waiting for the violation itself. That's basically why there is no mention of specific events other than the violation itself in the rules. Even when the 3-second criteria existed, events beyond the violation itself were irrelevant to the call. All that matters is whether or not the violation occurred.
It's akin to the argument made regarding "demonstrating balance". People will insist that if the disc is at rest, then they're free to fall or move forward even without demonstrating full control of balance despite the fact that the outcome of the throw isn't mentioned in the rule at all.
The result of the throw is irrelevant to the call there, just as it is supposed to be on any stance violation, but that doesn't mean the result absolutely can't and shouldn't be known before the call is made. The unfortunate side effect is that occasionally the outcome of the throw can influence the call...the call itself cannot be invalidated by that fact, though.
Then why include the word promptly at all? Removing the three second time limit makes perfect sense because no one is standing there with a stop watch after every throw and there's no sense in trying to enforce a very specific time limit when realistically there is no accurate way for that time limit to be measured or enforced. Thus they simply say that a call must be made 'promptly'. Now that is open to interpretation, and until the PDGA decides to define it more specifically I choose to interpret that as meaning a fault must be called as soon as it is identified as being a fault. By definition if you wait to see the outcome of a throw you have not called it as soon as you identified it as being a fault. 801.01a :"If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness." I believe this is the fairest interpretation of what a 'prompt' call is.
Too be fair the specific example that started this conversation was as tee shot and I can see how the timing might be less easy to parse on a putt near the circles edge. Also please keep in mind my response was in reaction to the hypothetical situation of someone intentionally calling a foot fault that didn't occur on an ace after it went in in order to abuse the rules. I stand by my assertion that the best way to handle that would be to tell them they didn't call it promptly and ignore it. If they want to appeal that to the TD they are free to but it just makes them look like a D-bag. I also am not advocating using this as an excuse to subvert correct calls. If I am called on a foot fault that was in fact a foot fault I'm not going to give anybody a hard time about exactly when it was called. But if someone is trying to abuse the rules to gain an advantage, different story.
The person who posed the hypothetical, also stated that it would overturned by the TD. It was posed as a lawyerly reading of the rule, not a practical one.
I'd suggest throwing a provisional, though.
What's "promptly"? I don't know. Somewhere between 3 seconds (since the rules committee removed that time frame), and so late that it causes a delay (such as, once you've started proceding down the fairway).
I'd suggest throwing a provisional, though.
What's "promptly"? I don't know. Somewhere between 3 seconds (since the rules committee removed that time frame), and so late that it causes a delay (such as, once you've started proceding down the fairway).
Would it be considered not promptly enough, if two players discussed the call, before making it? To me that should be allowed, even though the correct procedure might be the other way around. However, for the first stance violation call, where no second is needed, it might not really be an option to discuss afterwards, as the call is already made. The rules doesn't specifically allow a call to be retracted, (which is a mistake in my opinion) so by the letter of the rules, once that call is made, there is no way back, unless it is brought to the TD.
I would assume promptly means before the card has completed the hole, at the very latest. But in my own definition, I would say before the next player takes his turn assuming theyre not all dropping in the putt immediately after the offender putted
