Provisional throw

[txmxer]

Refer back to the Kyle Klein "OB" play at MVP two years ago.

Had Kyle called a provisional at the DZ throw and when the card arrived at the island they found the disc to be OB, then there would have been no second/alternate throw.

Alternatively, had he called a provisional on the DZ throw and he holes out for a 3 on the provisional. When they reached the island and see his lie is IB, the DZ throw would be discarded because the correct play is from the IB disc and his score would be whatever he did to finish out the hole from the correct lie.

 

[Sethamphetamine]

Sick thread!!!

 

[chevis]

f.y.i.: 809.02
discussed in the 2023 des moines challenge where gannon burr misused it: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3893251#post3893251

trying to find a way other than ob/missed mando to apply 809.02.B.2;
if you use 803.02, you get a new lie. so let's say a stick is too large to move & unsafe to stand on top of; it is possible dig out some dirt to get a foot under it. i want to use the solid obstacle relief (803.02.B), but the card says i need to dig out under the stick to establish a position. appropriate time to use provisional?

 

[txmxer]

f.y.i.: 809.02
discussed in the 2023 des moines challenge where gannon burr misused it: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3893251#post3893251

trying to find a way other than ob/missed mando to apply 809.02.B.2;
if you use 803.02, you get a new lie. so let's say a stick is too large to move & unsafe to stand on top of; it is possible dig out some dirt to get a foot under it. i want to use the solid obstacle relief (803.02.B), but the card says i need to dig out under the stick to establish a position. appropriate time to use provisional?

I think that seems like a legitimate use of provisional since the lie changes.

 

[araytx]

Refer back to the Kyle Klein "OB" play at MVP two years ago.

Had Kyle called a provisional at the DZ throw and when the card arrived at the island they found the disc to be OB, then there would have been no second/alternate throw.

Alternatively, had he called a provisional on the DZ throw and he holes out for a 3 on the provisional. When they reached the island and see his lie is IB, the DZ throw would be discarded because the correct play is from the IB disc and his score would be whatever he did to finish out the hole from the correct lie.

The type of provisional referenced in the KK situation is a "to save time" provisional, "in case my original throw is inbounds; I can't tell from here." So, if he does announce provisional at the DZ and the group agrees it would save time, then if the group later finds his original throw inbounds, he would then disregard the provisional throw and play from the original throw, regardless of the outcome of the provisional throw. SO whether he holes out for 3 from the drop zone or not, that throw does not count, since the provisional to save time was applied.

 

[Steve West]

From Des Moines Challenge thread.

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.

You could also add the options to abandon the throw or take optional relief.

An expansive view of "different lies" works fine. No need for further definition.

Throwing from behind the same marker is obviously not a different lie.

Throwing from the same drop zone or tee pad is obviously not a different lie.​

Anything else is different (unless I forgot another example).

Take the in-bounds within a meter of OB example. The player might want to take a meter toward the basket, while the group (correctly) points out they can only go perpendicularly from the nearest point on the OB line. The player says they will appeal, steps off both directions, marks both and starts two sets of provisional throws. That's how it should work.

Same for simply marking with a mini or not. If the player would choose the other method depending on the outcome of an appeal, they can make two sets of throws. But, before they throw they must say which method applies to which ruling. And which one they will use if both turn out to be legal.

The other requirements for taking a provisional will prevent abuse. And faking a preference would be unsportsmanlike. And one of the two choices would be a slightly worse lie than the other, which presumably they wouldn't choose unless they had to because of an adverse ruling. And the score will probably be the same in both cases anyway. And if marking the lie with a mini (or not) actually does change the expected score, it's important the player has the ability to make the preferred choice for the correct ruling.

It's illegal for partners in doubles to use a different marker when they are supposed to throw from the same lie, so I don't think we can say that marking with a mini (or not) does not result in different lies.

 

[txmxer]

I'd like to revisit the Eagle in the hazard provisional--not sure which event that was.

His disc was in the hazard and another disc knocked it out of the hazard. The spotter informed the card what happened, but Eagle chose to call a provisional. Not really sure why he chose to do that or if the card made a ruling on the call or not. I suppose the provisional was legal, but I don't see any way for the call to change if the card said the proper lie was in the hazard.

 

[chevis]

I'd like to revisit the Eagle in the hazard provisional--not sure which event that was.

His disc was in the hazard and another disc knocked it out of the hazard. The spotter informed the card what happened, but Eagle chose to call a provisional. Not really sure why he chose to do that or if the card made a ruling on the call or not. I suppose the provisional was legal, but I don't see any way for the call to change if the card said the proper lie was in the hazard.

this one is also 809.02.B.2

To appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when a player in the group disagrees with a group decision and an Official is not readily available, or if a player in the group wishes to appeal the decision of an Official.

i would guess he didn't think the spotter was correct (didn't get a good look to see if the disc was touching inbounds b4 getting moved)

 

[chevis]

I'd like to revisit the Eagle in the hazard provisional--not sure which event that was.

His disc was in the hazard and another disc knocked it out of the hazard. The spotter informed the card what happened, but Eagle chose to call a provisional. Not really sure why he chose to do that or if the card made a ruling on the call or not. I suppose the provisional was legal, but I don't see any way for the call to change if the card said the proper lie was in the hazard.

what was the outcome of the provisional/hole/appeal?

 

[txmxer]

what was the outcome of the provisional/hole/appeal?

The event was the Cascade Challenge, #10, round 1, part 2 on CCDG coverage.

Eagle nailed the putt from the hazard, stepped forward to where the disc was just beyond the hazard and missed the putt. So from the hazard, it was 2 strokes--one putt, one penalty. From outside the hazard it was a 2 putt, so same score either way.

I suppose this was the appropriate way to handle this if they weren't sure about the interference rules.

I've suggested not knowing and/or making incorrect calls seems like a courtesy violation (specifically GB's provisional at DMC), but I can't actually find anything that would specifically make it that way. I'm sure it would be a PITA to try and enforce or determine when such a violation has occurred. There is this statement in the competition manual.

1.05 Practice Rounds, Beginning Play, Late Arrivals

D. It is the sole responsibility of the player to know the course rules, be at their starting hole, and be ready to play in time for the start of their round.


I thought this was interesting in the Q&A:

Q:
My group made a ruling that turned out to be wrong. They called me safe when I was actually OB, so I played from an incorrect lie. Do I get penalized?

A:
You are responsible for playing the course properly. If you disagree with the group and an official is not readily available, play a provisional and have the TD make a ruling later.

 

[araytx]

I'd like to revisit the Eagle in the hazard provisional--not sure which event that was.

His disc was in the hazard and another disc knocked it out of the hazard. The spotter informed the card what happened, but Eagle chose to call a provisional. Not really sure why he chose to do that or if the card made a ruling on the call or not. I suppose the provisional was legal, but I don't see any way for the call to change if the card said the proper lie was in the hazard.

That's the other kind of provisional, the "I-don't-agree-with-the-group's-ruling" type. To simplify, just divide the provisionals into those two types -- "to save time" and "to disagree". (Fyi, the "I'm-not-sure-what-the-ruling-is" type of provisional is a form of "to save time".)

This might be what is confusing you. KK's was a different kind. On the Eagle McMahon one, he wanted to be sure in case the group's ruling was wrong, so he exercised his right to disagree, play what he thought should be played (along with the group's ruling), hole out on both and record both scores. Then the TD determines after he round which is correct. Notice that on the "to save time" version, you may not necessarily play out both sets of lies and hole out on both.

 

[araytx]

The event was the Cascade Challenge, #10, round 1, part 2 on CCDG coverage.

Eagle nailed the putt from the hazard, stepped forward to where the disc was just beyond the hazard and missed the putt. So from the hazard, it was 2 strokes--one putt, one penalty. From outside the hazard it was a 2 putt, so same score either way.

I suppose this was the appropriate way to handle this if they weren't sure about the interference rules.

I've suggested not knowing and/or making incorrect calls seems like a courtesy violation (specifically GB's provisional at DMC), but I can't actually find anything that would specifically make it that way. I'm sure it would be a PITA to try and enforce or determine when such a violation has occurred. There is this statement in the competition manual.

1.05 Practice Rounds, Beginning Play, Late Arrivals

D. It is the sole responsibility of the player to know the course rules, be at their starting hole, and be ready to play in time for the start of their round.


I thought this was interesting in the Q&A:

Q:
My group made a ruling that turned out to be wrong. They called me safe when I was actually OB, so I played from an incorrect lie. Do I get penalized?

A:
You are responsible for playing the course properly. If you disagree with the group and an official is not readily available, play a provisional and have the TD make a ruling later.

And that would have been the right time to play the "I-don't-agree-with-the-group's-ruling" type of provisional -- EVEN THOUGH they ruled in your favor!

 

[chevis]

That's the other kind of provisional, the "I-don't-agree-with-the-group's-ruling" type. To simplify, just divide the provisionals into those two types -- "to save time" and "to disagree". (Fyi, the "I'm-not-sure-what-the-ruling-is" type of provisional is a form of "to save time".)

i also thought it was that simple, but in the 2023 dmc thread it was determined you can't just disagree, there has to be "different lies".
it is interesting the q/a says "A:
You are responsible for playing the course properly. If you disagree with the group and an official is not readily available, play a provisional and have the TD make a ruling later.", but that is referring to an incorrect lie(the q); it's pretty easy to take that q/a & apply everywhere there is a disagreement

 

[BillFleming]

Instead of using the term 'disagree', let's use the correct term 'appeal'. There isn't anything in the rules about 'disagreeing' with your cardmates. Majority rules. HOWEVER, 801.03 (Appeals) Para B, allows a player to APPEAL a decision that they think is wrong. But they have to announce they are appealing the ruling. And para C allows a set of provisional throws for each possible outcome of the ruling if an official is not readily available.

It sounds like Eagle appealed the group's decision regarding his lie and the hazard.

B. A player may appeal a group decision to an Official, or an Official's decision to the Director, by clearly and promptly stating that desire to the group. If an Official or the Director is readily available, the group may stand aside and allow other groups to play through while the appeal is being heard.
C. If an Official or Director is not readily available, the thrower may make a set of provisional throws for each additional possible outcome of the ruling, and later appeal the ruling to an Official or to the Director when practical.

 

[chevis]

ah-ha! so gannon buhr correctly used a provisional at dmc.

i'm sure there is a way to abuse this to get a practice throw(s); does the td have power to say you should not have taken a provisional & giving you practice throw penalty(s)/stroke(s)? if the director does have this power, how do they make the determination you weren't just trying to appeal the group decision?

 

[araytx]

i also thought it was that simple, but in the 2023 dmc thread it was determined you can't just disagree, there has to be "different lies".
it is interesting the q/a says "A:
You are responsible for playing the course properly. If you disagree with the group and an official is not readily available, play a provisional and have the TD make a ruling later.", but that is referring to an incorrect lie(the q); it's pretty easy to take that q/a & apply everywhere there is a disagreement

Well kinda sorta. if using 809.02.B.2. you take a provisional throw when there are different lies as a result (i.e., one lie is the one the group determines and one other is what YOU think it should be). IF there is a situation where you disagree with the group's ruling but the lie is the same (for example, the group thinks your throw is OB, but you think it is straddling the line with enough inbounds to not be OB), the resulting lie(s) for each outcome (the group's OB call vs your inbounds call) could both be the same. You could still make an announcement challenging their ruling but there would be no need for multiple throws going forward since it is the same lie.

Instead of using the term 'disagree', let's use the correct term 'appeal'. There isn't anything in the rules about 'disagreeing' with your cardmates. Majority rules. HOWEVER, 801.03 (Appeals) Para B, allows a player to APPEAL a decision that they think is wrong. But they have to announce they are appealing the ruling. And para C allows a set of provisional throws for each possible outcome of the ruling if an official is not readily available.

It sounds like Eagle appealed the group's decision regarding his lie and the hazard.

OK. OK, now we are being semantic. Yes, Rule 809.02 B.2. is "to appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies." I know that. As I said, I was trying to simplify for txmxer the types of provisionals into the two categories. Sometimes when you simplify something you will make a shorter, less wordy communiqué, and use more colloquial language, familiar terms or synonyms. That was what I was attempting to do. But I see it. I've been challenged on both.

 

[chevis]

IF there is a situation where you disagree with the group's ruling but the lie is the same

ok, got it now. in gannon's moving the stick case, he would move the stick & play it because it is the same lie. if he wasn't suppose to move the stick then he would get a penalty; no provisional throw, just an appeal to the td.

 

[BillFleming]

OK. OK, now we are being semantic. Yes, Rule 809.02 B.2. is "to appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies." I know that. As I said, I was trying to simplify for txmxer the types of provisionals into the two categories. Sometimes when you simplify something you will make a shorter, less wordy communiqué, and use more colloquial language, familiar terms or synonyms. That was what I was attempting to do. But I see it. I've been challenged on both.

The reason I brought up the difference was that I was in a situation where the wording made a difference. A cardmate thought he had a certain lie, two of us agreed, a third disagreed, but he wasn't able to say why. So, we said that the cardmate's lie was as he wanted. The other cardmate said he disagreed. We played on. At the end, the disagreeing cardmate went to the TD about it. The TD asked us if he had stated that he was going to appeal and we said no....he just said he disagreed and left it at that. So, he wasn't able to appeal it. The way it was played stood.

 

[araytx]

The reason I brought up the difference was that I was in a situation where the wording made a difference. A cardmate thought he had a certain lie, two of us agreed, a third disagreed, but he wasn't able to say why. So, we said that the cardmate's lie was as he wanted. The other cardmate said he disagreed. We played on. At the end, the disagreeing cardmate went to the TD about it. The TD asked us if he had stated that he was going to appeal and we said no....he just said he disagreed and left it at that. So, he wasn't able to appeal it. The way it was played stood.

I get that. I see what you're saying. I was just trying to simplify the reasons to use a provisional. It's not "at any time" like some people think. It's to save time and to appeal.