Ledgestone Insurance Open

[cheese dog]

I watched this mess live and for there to be a dis agreement is a fail on the td. That hole is trouble in every way, I did notice how once mcbeth got the call he was looking for from the tds he threw quickly from the dz. nikkos well heard cussing was spot on after mcbeths rant last week about the marked disc thing. he was jabbing for 3 holes about that, which imho he was correct for. I didn't care for condescending explanation by terry and steve after that. Where are these forums steve ask, terry didn't want to say well its on our live streaming video, so made a dumb post office joke. folks on the chat were civil and constructive and i believe that situation was not handled correctly by terry, the tds, mcbeth, or his cardmates. anytime you have this circus golf where you change the rules and have unnecessary ob you are asking for trouble. and for steve to imply that if you say the word provisional you will not be stroked is ridiculous .

 

[araytx]

I can't say I agree that stroke and distance is the worst. Personally, I'm an advocate of that being the standard instead of "last in bounds". However, it still needs to be designed and used appropriately, which isn't the case in about 95% of the holes I've ever seen that restrict players to just stroke and distance on OB throws.

If players are taking double-digit scores on a par 3 hole strictly because they have to keep throwing from the same lie...that's misuse of the rule and poor design, IMO. That shouldn't be an indictment of the rule itself.

My problem with throw & distance is it's an inconsistent penalty. The problem lies when SOME holes are throw & distance and SOME holes play standard OB rules. Not the same nor consistent. No amount of design comments can justify the inconsistency in my mind.

I'd be fine if it were ALWAYS throw and distance; just not sometimes T&D and sometimes not.

While it's true the TD can prevent players from playing from previous lie if they go OB, it's inconsequential because Optional Rethrow is NOT an OB rule but a general rule that supersedes any rule including OB options or restrictions.

That's what I've been saying. If that is correct, I'm gonna add that to all of our holes locally with a basket close to the OB. Here's your dropzone (50' away) and you MUST go to the drop zone if you go OB. [for those not paying attention, that's sarcasm.]

But do you see how that sounds??? Taking away optional re-throw if you go OB??? Doesn't sound right in my mind!

You can throw an optional re-throw provisionally if you are not sure whether you have the right to throw an optional re-throw.

He did not have the right to make an optional re-throw, according to the TD.

Then he shouldn't have had the right to throw a provisional either. Provisionals have three reasons in 804.06 B.1. & one other in 804.06 B.2., and "I don't know where I'm supposed to throw from next" is not one of them.

 

[tom12003]

Provisionals were established for speed of play--questionable if a shot was in-bounds or out-of-bounds and avoiding players from walking 400' to see if it was OB or not; don't see how Paul's first shot qualified for a provisional--it was OB. Always have the rethrow option--Paul's third shot also went OB. What's next? Can he go to the drop zone for his 3rd shot or does the OB rethrow count as a practice throw? At worst, Paul should have been throwing from the drop zone for his 4th not his third.

 

[Steve West]

Wrong. There is no such thing as not having the right to make an optional re-throw. The right can't be taken away by rule. Paul was not attempting to make an optional re-throw, therefore his provisional throw can not be ruled as one.

804.06 C. "A provisional throw may not be subsequently declared to be an optional re-throw."

It wasn't subsequent. He declared it to be a re-throw before he took the provisional.

And the TD took away the right to re-throw. Whether the rule lets him do that ore not, he did.

What makes you think we was not taking a provisional because he was not sure whether he could take a re-throw?

 

[JC17393]

Provisionals were established for speed of play--questionable if a shot was in-bounds or out-of-bounds and avoiding players from walking 400' to see if it was OB or not; don't see how Paul's first shot qualified for a provisional--it was OB. Always have the rethrow option--Paul's third shot also went OB. What's next? Can he go to the drop zone for his 3rd shot or does the OB rethrow count as a practice throw? At worst, Paul should have been throwing from the drop zone for his 4th not his third.

Provisionals can also be used if there is a question of where to play the next shot from. In this case, Paul was unsure whether he had to re-tee or go immediately to the drop zone. Had the official not been right there to rule, he arguably should have had to play out both options (the re-tee and the drop zone) and get clarification after the hole was complete.

In declaring his re-tee a provisional, that means if he wasn't required to do so, that shot (and any subsequent shots the resulted from it) would be discarded. It wouldn't count and it wouldn't be penalized. That's exactly how it was handled.

 

[Steve West]

Then he shouldn't have had the right to throw a provisional either. Provisionals have three reasons in 804.06 B.1. & one other in 804.06 B.2., and "I don't know where I'm supposed to throw from next" is not one of them.

It seems to be:

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.

Paul's lie was either the tee or the drop zone. I guess they could have stood around until the TD was contacted, but it seems more expeditious to continue to play while the TD is being contacted.

 

[tom12003]

Provisionals can also be used if there is a question of where to play the next shot from. In this case, Paul was unsure whether he had to re-tee or go immediately to the drop zone. Had the official not been right there to rule, he arguably should have had to play out both options (the re-tee and the drop zone) and get clarification after the hole was complete.

In declaring his re-tee a provisional, that means if he wasn't required to do so, that shot (and any subsequent shots the resulted from it) would be discarded. It wouldn't count and it wouldn't be penalized. That's exactly how it was handled.

Crappy lawyerish definitions. He was OB on his first shot period.

 

[JC17393]

It wasn't subsequent. He declared it to be a re-throw before he took the provisional.

And the TD took away the right to re-throw. Whether the rule lets him do that ore not, he did.

What makes you think we was not taking a provisional because he was not sure whether he could take a re-throw?

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.

 

[BionicRib]

Paul was not unsure about reteeing or going to the drop zone. He simply didn't care to play the drop zone because he didn't like the spot it was at

 

[Steve West]

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.

He said something along the lines of "Can I re-tee? I'm not a fan of that drop zone."

 

[JC17393]

Crappy lawyerish definitions. He was OB on his first shot period.

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.

 

[Steve West]

While it's true the TD can prevent players from playing from previous lie if they go OB, it's inconsequential because Optional Rethrow is NOT an OB rule but a general rule that supersedes any rule including OB options or restrictions.

Are you trying to make my head explode with a statement that does not compute. I mean, would you be trying to make my head explode if I were a robot. Which I'm not. Definitely human here. Made of meat.

The only way a TD can prevent players from playing a previous lie when they go OB is if the Optional Re-throw rule is overruled. Just because it is a different rule does not mean it cannot be canceled by another rule.

If the limited option OB rule does not overrule the Optional Re-throw, why is it in there at all? It would have no effect. They could have saved some ink.

 

[tom12003]

He said something along the lines of "Can I re-tee? I'm not a fan of that drop zone."

DUMB

 

[BionicRib]

That's not the question though. The question is whether he was supposed to re-tee or go to the drop zone.

Why do you keep saying this?

He very clearly said he didn't want to throw from the drop zone. He was questioning whether he was allowed to re tee or not.

 

[Steve West]

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.

Paul knew he COULD go to the drop zone. He knew he was not REQUIRED to re-tee. He called a provisional because he preferred to re-tee but was unsure whether that was allowed.

When the ruling came in that he did not have the right to re-tee, the provisional throw (re-tee) was abandoned.

 

[tom12003]

Should still have been his fourth shot from the drop zone.

 

[Steve West]

Should still have been his fourth shot from the drop zone.

"Should" meaning they got the ruling wrong, or "should" meaning the rule needs to be re-written?

 

[araytx]

Provisionals can also be used if there is a question of where to play the next shot from. In this case, Paul was unsure whether he had to re-tee or go immediately to the drop zone. Had the official not been right there to rule, he arguably should have had to play out both options (the re-tee and the drop zone) and get clarification after the hole was complete.

In declaring his re-tee a provisional, that means if he wasn't required to do so, that shot (and any subsequent shots the resulted from it) would be discarded. It wouldn't count and it wouldn't be penalized. That's exactly how it was handled.

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

What's in the book is:

Limited OB Options:
Disc must come to rest
over the ball diamond
fence and within the
roped area to be
considered in bounds.
Proceed to the drop
zone with penalty if the
first shot goes OB.
Penalty for any other
OB throw is a rethrow
from the previous lie
with a one throw
penalty.

Seems clear, unless there is an absolute right to take an optional re-throw, as many are arguing (including Nikko).

Exactly. Agree with both points

 

[JC17393]

Why do you keep saying this?

He very clearly said he didn't want to throw from the drop zone. He was questioning whether he was allowed to re tee or not.

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.

 

[tom12003]

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.