Does benefit of the doubt come into play when no players on a card make a call?

[robdeforge]

In the case of Holyn Handley's drive on 18 yesterday, her shot was very close to the out of bounds line. If it had been ruled by her cardmates that she didn't cross inbounds at any point, she would have had to re tee. She was given the spot as if she crossed in bounds.

I'm seeing TONS of people saying this is the correct call, because nobody on the card could legitimately see it close enough to make the call either way, therefore "benefit goes to the player"

1) It's my understanding that they should have looked at the disc, asked the spotter what happened, and each cast a vote what they thought happened. In that case if it tied 2-2, the benefit would go to Holyn.

2) What some people are saying is that if nobody makes a call at all, because they were too far away to be sure, that means that the call is 0-0 and therefore benefit goes to the player.

I guess I have two questions - is my interpretation of what should have happened correct, and is it possible for benefit goes to the player to apply to break a 0-0 tie?

 

[Cgkdisc]

In a tied vote where other players have actually voted, not abstained, the player's vote breaks the tie. Presumably, in this case, the vote would have been 1-0 with Holyn being forced to vote where disc was in or out. So, it isn't necessarily "benefit to the player" but more like "player's call decides" when no one else votes. Note that when Henna called herself on a stance violation at the USWDGC (playing from the wrong "marker" disc), no one on the card saw it to be able to vote so her single "vote" was the call.

 

[Steve West]

In a tied vote where other players have actually voted, not abstained, the player's vote breaks the tie. Presumably, in this case, the vote would have been 1-0 with Holyn being forced to vote where disc was in or out. So, it isn't necessarily "benefit to the player" but more like "player's call decides" when no one else votes. Note that when Henna called herself on a stance violation at the USWDGC (playing from the wrong "marker" disc), no one on the card saw it to be able to vote so her single "vote" was the call.

That's not quite right, and you are mixing up two different rules.



1 .Determining whether and where a disc went OB is a group determination. That is covered by:



"801.03 A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower."



First, try to get a majority. In that step, the player is one of the votes. If there is no majority then the ruling is the one that is most beneficial to the player. USUALLY, this will be the one the thrower voted for. However, if the thrower had voted for the bad result, the ruling should still be to the benefit of the thrower.



A hypothetical example. The thrower and another player think the disc is OB. The two other players think the disc is safe. No majority, so the ruling should be that the disc is in-bounds – even though the thrower thought is was OB.



2. For violations, while a thrower can make a call on herself, that call is not enforceable without a confirmation by another player.

"801.02 E. A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official.[...]"



In the case you mentioned, the thrower made the call and by the position of her discs and feet another player confirmed that the call was correct.



In another case, the thrower called a violation on herself and no one confirmed because it was not actually a violation. Under the rules, the thrower does not have the ability to single-handedly make a call on herself.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That's not quite right, and you are mixing up two different rules.



1 .Determining whether and where a disc went OB is a group determination. That is covered by:



"801.03 A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower."



First, try to get a majority. In that step, the player is one of the votes. If there is no majority then the ruling is the one that is most beneficial to the player. USUALLY, this will be the one the thrower voted for. However, if the thrower had voted for the bad result, the ruling should still be to the benefit of the thrower.



A hypothetical example. The thrower and another player think the disc is OB. The two other players think the disc is safe. No majority, so the ruling should be that the disc is in-bounds – even though the thrower thought is was OB.



2. For violations, while a thrower can make a call on herself, that call is not enforceable without a confirmation by another player.

"801.02 E. A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official.[...]"



In the case you mentioned, the thrower made the call and by the position of her discs and feet another player confirmed that the call was correct.



In another case, the thrower called a violation on herself and no one confirmed because it was not actually a violation. Under the rules, the thrower does not have the ability to single-handedly make a call on herself.

"Misplay" by rules committee if a player cannot make a call against themself. Otherwise, how can someone play the fundamental game against the course? The Competition rules could specify that a player may not rule against themself but not the basic rule book. The basic rules should define the game a player may play alone.

And, the player should determine what ruling is beneficial to the player. If the intent for "benefit" is supposed to mean "potentially produce a better score" then the rule should say that. The thing is, there are situations where it's not clear which option is more beneficial. In which case, the rule should allow the player's choice to be followed.

 

[biscoe]

"Misplay" by rules committee if a player cannot make a call against themself. Otherwise, how can someone play the fundamental game against the course? The Competition rules could specify that a player may not rule against themself but not the basic rule book. The basic rules should define the game a player may play alone.

And, the player should determine what ruling is beneficial to the player. If the intent for "benefit" is supposed to mean "potentially produce a better score" then the rule should say that. The thing is, there are situations where it's not clear which option is more beneficial. In which case, the rule should allow the player's choice to be followed.

I see no obvious reason to disallow a player from making a call against themselves and I agree with Chuck on the second paragraph.

Steve- what is the rationale behind disallowing "self calls"?

 

[ejvogie]

I see no obvious reason to disallow a player from making a call against themselves and I agree with Chuck on the second paragraph.

Steve- what is the rationale behind disallowing "self calls"?

IIRC, it was to disallow players calling a foot fault on themselves after missing a putt, giving them a free re-putt (if it was the first offense).

 

[Steve West]

I see no obvious reason to disallow a player from making a call against themselves and I agree with Chuck on the second paragraph.

Steve- what is the rationale behind disallowing "self calls"?

As for the second paragraph, that's how it works now.

As for self-calls, a player CAN make self-calls. But there is one more step before a rule with a penalty is enforced; getting another player to confirm.

It's certainly debatable whether that's how it should be, but that's how the rule is written now.

I encourage everyone who is giving rules advice to cut and paste the rule they are explaining. This will go a long way to prevent inadvertently giving bad rules advice.

 

[BillFleming]

I see no obvious reason to disallow a player from making a call against themselves and I agree with Chuck on the second paragraph.

Steve- what is the rationale behind disallowing "self calls"?

Players ARE allowed to make a call against themselves. It happens frequently. However, unlike ball golf, in disc golf a penalty requires another player to second the call. What frequently happens when a player 'self calls' a violation is that no one seconds it. If no one seconds it, then there's no violation, no penalty.

I've had this happen a few times myself where I've called a foot fault on myself and no one seconded it. I was kind of frustrated because I knew I had committed a violation and 'was getting away with it'.

 

[PastorofMuppets]

I remember Patrick Brown doing this on coverage at the 2020 Idlewild Open on Hole #2. He called himself for a foot fault and no one on the card seconded it.

 

[Steve West]

"Misplay" by rules committee if a player cannot make a call against themself. Otherwise, how can someone play the fundamental game against the course? The Competition rules could specify that a player may not rule against themself but not the basic rule book. The basic rules should define the game a player may play alone.

See
"QA-APP-6: What rules apply if I'm playing in an unsanctioned tournament or any other non-PDGA round?



If you are playing an event where it is announced that PDGA rules apply, then the Official Rules of Disc Golf apply, whether the event is sanctioned by the PDGA or not. The Competition Manual only applies to PDGA events. If no announcement has been made regarding the rules, you can play by whatever rules your group or the event participants agree on, including the PDGA rules."

A lone player would either not be in a sanctioned event or would have an official with them. So the lone player in a non-sanctioned round can announce to themself that all PDGA rules apply, except that violations can be enforced by oneself. Plus whatever other adjustments to the rules need to be made to play alone.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'd take the silence of the other members of the group as a vote in the player's favor.

As a practical matter, it's very rare to have a disagreement and actual vote over OB. It has to be extremely close. Usually the player declares status and others consent -- sometimes, just by not disputing it -- or not.

 

[ru4por]

In the case of Holyn Handley's drive on 18 yesterday, her shot was very close to the out of bounds line. If it had been ruled by her cardmates that she didn't cross inbounds at any point, she would have had to re tee. She was given the spot as if she crossed in bounds.

I'm seeing TONS of people saying this is the correct call, because nobody on the card could legitimately see it close enough to make the call either way, therefore "benefit goes to the player"

1) It's my understanding that they should have looked at the disc, asked the spotter what happened, and each cast a vote what they thought happened. In that case if it tied 2-2, the benefit would go to Holyn.

2) What some people are saying is that if nobody makes a call at all, because they were too far away to be sure, that means that the call is 0-0 and therefore benefit goes to the player.

I guess I have two questions - is my interpretation of what should have happened correct, and is it possible for benefit goes to the player to apply to break a 0-0 tie?

No, the spotter has NO official stance on the call. Though often consulted and perhaps in position to have seen the play, his role does not encompass rule clarification or vote. I understand the pragmatic side of this. Consulting the "innocent bystander" to procure information, is possibly the best way to get the call correct. IMO...spotters should be trained to stay out of ALL rules debates, on the course. [or change the rules and spotter qualification/training] The question should be resolved among the four cardmates. If no resolution can be found, the benefit goes to the decision of the thrower.

 

[BillFleming]

No, the spotter has NO official stance on the call. Though often consulted and perhaps in position to have seen the play, his role does not encompass rule clarification or vote. I understand the pragmatic side of this. Consulting the "innocent bystander" to procure information, is possibly the best way to get the call correct. IMO...spotters should be trained to stay out of ALL rules debates, on the course. [or change the rules and spotter qualification/training] The question should be resolved among the four cardmates. If no resolution can be found, the benefit goes to the decision of the thrower.

Exactly.....the spotter should let the player know what they saw when the player arrives at the spot. Then the spotter steps aside and let's the player/group make their decision. After giving their initial advice, the only time the spotter should say anything more about the call is if they are asked by the group for clarification.

I was a spotter on a hole and flagged a disc OB and place the 'last in spot' marker. The player came up and I explained that I saw the disc last in bounds at that spot. They felt it should be a spot closer to the basket. I did the right thing by stating that it was a decision for the card to make and stepped aside. They discussed the two spots, asked me a further question about my spot, and finally decided in the player's favor. My opinion of the call? They had four sets of eyes viewing it from one direction, I had one set of eyes viewing it from another, and they felt their spot was more accurate than mine.....it's their decision that mattered, not mine.

I am happy that in all my times spotting, that was the only 'call' I made that got overruled by the card. I've been questioned on a couple others, but it was mainly for clarification.

 

[ru4por]

Exactly.....the spotter should let the player know what they saw when the player arrives at the spot. Then the spotter steps aside and let's the player/group make their decision. After giving their initial advice, the only time the spotter should say anything more about the call is if they are asked by the group for clarification.

I was a spotter on a hole and flagged a disc OB and place the 'last in spot' marker. The player came up and I explained that I saw the disc last in bounds at that spot. They felt it should be a spot closer to the basket. I did the right thing by stating that it was a decision for the card to make and stepped aside. They discussed the two spots, asked me a further question about my spot, and finally decided in the player's favor. My opinion of the call? They had four sets of eyes viewing it from one direction, I had one set of eyes viewing it from another, and they felt their spot was more accurate than mine.....it's their decision that mattered, not mine.

I am happy that in all my times spotting, that was the only 'call' I made that got overruled by the card. I've been questioned on a couple others, but it was mainly for clarification.

I have spotted for USADGC several times. I loved doing it and took my job seriously. I always saw my job, as a spotter, limited to where the disc landed, not where it might have been at some point. I have refused to speculate on OB calls. I think there is value in having spotters do more, but I would advocate for spotters to be certified officials and go through training before the tournament. This, of course, is likely not a logistical option. Getting spotters, currently required giving them gifts to help, and spotters are often FAR from certified officials.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I'd take the silence of the other members of the group as a vote in the player's favor.

"Speak now, or forever hold your peace."

 

[nothinbuttree]

This wasn't an OB question. It was a leaving OB question. Everyone knows it was OB the entire time. The question becomes did it ever get BACK in bounds. If that vote is zero to zero, (no one saw it, no one has an opinion, etc), then the answer would be it did stay OB = rethrow from where it was last IB, or the box. But the players did not do that. They were of the opinion, even though clearly they could not see, that it DID come back in IB, if only for a millisecond. This was clearly (to me), a be nice to the player choice.

There should not be situations where reasonably attentive players ON the card cannot make a determination. Its not a player issue to me, its a course design issue, as some have said. When no one has a chance to see something, that is not a good setup.

 

[Dcinmd]

There should not be situations where reasonably attentive players ON the card cannot make a determination. Its not a player issue to me, its a course design issue, as some have said. When no one has a chance to see something, that is not a good setup.

If the players stopped throwing 500+ feet you might have a point.

 

[Karl]

Seems like a case of one more 'yea' vote for the use of DZs.

 

[Cgkdisc]

One of the options that the TD can provide for marking a disc landing OB is at the nearest point inbounds. This can work well for artificial OB that parallels fairways where the disc is usually easily found (versus water). Then, it doesn't matter whether the disc flew mostly OB or IB during its route. No waiver required.
806.02 D. At the Director's discretion, the player may additionally choose to play the next throw from:
4. A lie designated by a marker disc placed on the playing surface up to one meter away from the point on the out-of-bounds line nearest the position of the disc.

 

[DavidSauls]

One of the options that the TD can provide for marking a disc landing OB is at the nearest point inbounds. This can work well for artificial OB that parallels fairways where the disc is usually easily found (versus water). Then, it doesn't matter whether the disc flew mostly OB or IB during its route. No waiver required.
806.02 D. At the Director's discretion, the player may additionally choose to play the next throw from:
4. A lie designated by a marker disc placed on the playing surface up to one meter away from the point on the out-of-bounds line nearest the position of the disc.

I like this option, and we should probably make more use of it. (While you dismiss it for water, it would actually work for shallow creeks where the disc can be seen. Just not as well for deep water.)

This might also be an option for some artificial island holes, as well, particularly if the resulting lie would still be long enough to not have a gimme putt.