#21  
Old 03-08-2019, 01:19 PM
Doofenshmirtz's Avatar
Doofenshmirtz Doofenshmirtz is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 7.2
Courses Played: 94
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 972
Niced 308 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Getting players to know rules that don't seem intuitive is difficult. An element of inferring intent is a worthy trade-off, compared to making a long list of natural and inconsequential actions illegal.

Also, we're self-officiated. The possible thrower is part of the group and can weigh in. A lot of times they'll make an immediate, reflexive (and therefore honest) comment about what happened.
The problem (albeit, perhaps not a big on in this case) is that "intuitive" is subjective. Also, keep in mind that this is not a discussion of legal and illegal, i.e., not a discussion of penalties (although some, whom I won't mention, apparently think the score in disc golf is a tally of penalties assessed). So there is no long list of illegal things, just the definition of what constitutes a throw. I suggest that what should be striven for is not what people find intuitive or, at least, intuitiveness should not be the goal, but instead the rule should be easy to assess, like "once the thrower has taken a stance, release of the disc constitutes a throw."

I don't suggest that such a rule is necessary or that there is some rash of incidents warranting any change. To me, it's just a challenge as to how the rule might be made more elegant and easy to interpret. If players understand that release of a disc after taking a stance constitutes a throw and, even for disc golfers, that seems pretty easy to understand, then there should be no complaint by anyone who gets in a stance and releases their disc. The intent component is fine, but unnecessary and without benefit in my view.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-08-2019, 01:59 PM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 21.6
Courses Played: 150
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 7,528
Niced 3,233 Times in 1,359 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz View Post
The problem (albeit, perhaps not a big on in this case) is that "intuitive" is subjective. Also, keep in mind that this is not a discussion of legal and illegal, i.e., not a discussion of penalties (although some, whom I won't mention, apparently think the score in disc golf is a tally of penalties assessed). So there is no long list of illegal things, just the definition of what constitutes a throw. I suggest that what should be striven for is not what people find intuitive or, at least, intuitiveness should not be the goal, but instead the rule should be easy to assess, like "once the thrower has taken a stance, release of the disc constitutes a throw."

I don't suggest that such a rule is necessary or that there is some rash of incidents warranting any change. To me, it's just a challenge as to how the rule might be made more elegant and easy to interpret. If players understand that release of a disc after taking a stance constitutes a throw and, even for disc golfers, that seems pretty easy to understand, then there should be no complaint by anyone who gets in a stance and releases their disc. The intent component is fine, but unnecessary and without benefit in my view.
What you suggest makes sense, but then the task isn't defining "throw", it's defining "stance". Does it require contact with the lie? Am I in my stance if I'm 8 feet behind my marker lining up to run up? Does contact with the teeing area/tee pad make a difference? Can I stand on the pad waiting for the fairway to clear without being considered in my stance?

Not that it wouldn't be a worthwhile endeavor to define these things, but it sure seems like making things super complicated for the sake of clarity when 99% of the time the existing rules and their reliance on intuition and player judgment does the job perfectly well.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-08-2019, 02:33 PM
Karl Karl is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 862
Niced 129 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Probably 99.99% of the time! But I'm leaning towards what Doof stated / espouses. Even though one usually can't draw up rules that cover 100% of all scenarios, it's bad when there are "holes" in existing rules - that 'interpretation' is needed. To cover these holes, sometimes rules have to be a wee bit voluminous. Nobody likes this but it may be needed to 'have a complete game'.
The more 'holes' that are found - however small - the more chances we have to "fill them"...whenever....
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-08-2019, 02:44 PM
Doofenshmirtz's Avatar
Doofenshmirtz Doofenshmirtz is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 7.2
Courses Played: 94
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 972
Niced 308 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post
What you suggest makes sense, but then the task isn't defining "throw", it's defining "stance". Does it require contact with the lie?
This is true, but that requires only a small modification to 802.07 or a another sentence to the throw rule to the effect of "A player is considered to be in his stance for the purposes of this rule whenever the player has one supporting point in contact with the lie."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-08-2019, 04:25 PM
krupicka's Avatar
krupicka krupicka is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Naperville, IL
Years Playing: 18.1
Courses Played: 67
Posts: 1,247
Niced 236 Times in 128 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz View Post
If players understand that release of a disc after taking a stance constitutes a throw and, even for disc golfers, that seems pretty easy to understand, then there should be no complaint by anyone who gets in a stance and releases their disc. The intent component is fine, but unnecessary and without benefit in my view.
You would also need to address the release of a disc when not in a stance. (e.g. missed lie)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-08-2019, 04:39 PM
sidewinder22's Avatar
sidewinder22 sidewinder22 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Creeping Creek DGC
Years Playing: 13.1
Courses Played: 219
Posts: 14,784
Niced 2,587 Times in 1,611 Posts
Default


Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-08-2019, 10:18 PM
Doofenshmirtz's Avatar
Doofenshmirtz Doofenshmirtz is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 7.2
Courses Played: 94
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 972
Niced 308 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krupicka View Post
You would also need to address the release of a disc when not in a stance. (e.g. missed lie)
I think that is already taken care of. Either it is a stance violation or a practice throw or neither. I haven't gone back to look at these rules, so I may be wrong, but that doesn't really seem like a problem. Got any troublesome examples?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-09-2019, 06:42 PM
d11rok d11rok is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Years Playing: 3.1
Courses Played: 64
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 170
Niced 76 Times in 41 Posts
Default

If the mini is down in front of the previously thrown disc, and then said disc is picked up, in order for the foot to be on the lie it would practically have to be on the disc getting picked up. You must be rather flexible.
Your argument is another example of someone trying to find a ridiculous "counter" to make the rules more complex than they need to be.

The answer to the op is that the action in question is to be considered either a throw, or a practice throw. Rule accordingly.

Also, there are many using the term "drop" as if it's defined in the rulebook. It is not, so up for interpretation. However, it would be a stretch to consider a projectile that traveled a significant distance in any direction as a "drop" in any common definition of the word.




Quote:
Originally Posted by LateWesternSky View Post
So when you mark your lie for a putt, pick up the disc you threw from the tee (while on your lie) and set it on/in front of your marker, that is a throw?

Player on the lie? Check
Disc went forward? Check

Definitely not a throw.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-09-2019, 11:03 PM
LateWesternSky LateWesternSky is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 120
Niced 83 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by d11rok View Post
If the mini is down in front of the previously thrown disc, and then said disc is picked up, in order for the foot to be on the lie it would practically have to be on the disc getting picked up. You must be rather flexible.
Your argument is another example of someone trying to find a ridiculous "counter" to make the rules more complex than they need to be.

The answer to the op is that the action in question is to be considered either a throw, or a practice throw. Rule accordingly.

Also, there are many using the term "drop" as if it's defined in the rulebook. It is not, so up for interpretation. However, it would be a stretch to consider a projectile that traveled a significant distance in any direction as a "drop" in any common definition of the word.
First, discs are a little over 20 cm and the lie goes 30 cm back from the marker so you can easily be on your lie and pick up a disc at the same time.

Second, you can pick up your disc and put your foot on your lie before "dropping" said disc.

Third, the lie has nothing to do with it. All the people saying it counts as a throw should be arguing that it also counts as a misplay if you aren't on your lie.

I'm not interpreting the op as saying the disc flies a significant distance. If it does, of course it's a throw. But if it falls farther down than it travels forward, I wouldn't call it a throw.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #30  
Old 03-10-2019, 06:30 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.2
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,928
Niced 3,035 Times in 1,365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by d11rok View Post
Also, there are many using the term "drop" as if it's defined in the rulebook. It is not, so up for interpretation. However, it would be a stretch to consider a projectile that traveled a significant distance in any direction as a "drop" in any common definition of the word.
What about a drop-&-roll? I've dropped some discs that traveled considerable distances, while enduring as much vocabulary as I could muster in my commands to stop.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drop Zones zud00 Course Design 6 12-09-2016 06:25 PM
Drop-ins Justin Daniel Rules Questions & Discussion 21 11-24-2015 10:34 AM
Is a Drop a Throw? asjzn6 Rules Questions & Discussion 76 04-25-2012 08:03 AM
Just drop it in the Rit right? Huk Finn Disc Dyeing 10 07-26-2010 09:59 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.