#51  
Old 03-28-2020, 12:15 AM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 572 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Look up "following". It is not equivalent to the more general "after". The first definition in Merriam-Webster on line for "following" is "being next in order or time ". Using "following" instead of "after" was the clarification.
I looked it up. There are multiple definitions depending on how it is used in a sentence. Twitter users are following other users, 50 police cars were following OJ's Bronco, fashion houses are on notice following the renewed popularity of Birkenstocks, etc.

But let's take your definition of "next in order or time." I would argue that placing a marker on a 1m perpendicular line, or moving to a DZ would be the next action in time after the OB throw; which means the penalty free optional relief is not next in time. To be next in time, the optional relief must be the sole method used to establish an IB lie. Right?
Sponsored Links

Last edited by teemkey; 03-28-2020 at 12:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-28-2020, 04:23 AM
cheesethin cheesethin is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Courses Played: 16
Posts: 380
Niced 220 Times in 117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post

...Fulsome reply...
Thank you for detailing your thinking. Just a quick one as I don't have time for a detailed response.

You have overlooked two key points.

The first is that 803.02 optional relief REQUIRES a lie to be established, BEFORE the rule can be applied. See bolded.

Quote:
D. A player may elect at any time to take optional relief by declaring their intention to the group. The LIE may then be relocated by marking a new lie which is farther from the target, and is on the line of play...
An out of bounds throw DOES NOT have a lie, until the player makes their choice of lie under 806.02.D. It only has a position, until the player makes their choice.

And equally critical, the second point is that there is NO LINE OF PLAY to move back along if you don't have a lie.

Under your interpretation, what point would the line of play pass through?

And to head you off at the pass; no, the last point in bounds is not a lie in any way, shape or form. And it can't be coerced into pretending to be one.




Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Niced: (3)
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-28-2020, 03:45 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 572 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesethin View Post
Thank you for detailing your thinking. Just a quick one as I don't have time for a detailed response.

You have overlooked two key points.

The first is that 803.02 optional relief REQUIRES a lie to be established, BEFORE the rule can be applied. See bolded.



An out of bounds throw DOES NOT have a lie, until the player makes their choice of lie under 806.02.D. It only has a position, until the player makes their choice.
Well done! Most persuasive argument yet, I see no need to add anything more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesethin View Post
And equally critical, the second point is that there is NO LINE OF PLAY to move back along if you don't have a lie.

Under your interpretation, what point would the line of play pass through?

And to head you off at the pass; no, the last point in bounds is not a lie in any way, shape or form. And it can't be coerced into pretending to be one.
...
My earlier argument stipulates that optional relief after an OB is a member of a set of methods of which only one can be used to establish an IB lie. So, yes, just as the last point IB is used as the referent for 1m relief, it would be used to determine line of play.

However I agree that your interpretation is more consistent with the definitions of optional relief, lie, and line of play, whereas my argument is more consistent with establishing an IB lie after an OB. So, I'll concede the point because my interpretation is more disruptive to fundamental rules of play than yours.

I'll admit that don't like free optional relief, and it colors my analysis.

Let's take the case where player A's tee shot crosses OB, and player B's tee shot lands on the line. Both players take 1m relief and optional relief. Both are now throwing their third shot even though A was OB and B wasn't. It ain't right.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-28-2020, 04:33 PM
cheesethin cheesethin is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Courses Played: 16
Posts: 380
Niced 220 Times in 117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Well done! Most persuasive argument yet, I see no need to add anything more.
Cool! Good debating.


Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
My earlier argument stipulates that optional relief after an OB is a member of a set of methods of which only one can be used to establish an IB lie. So, yes, just as the last point IB is used as the referent for 1m relief, it would be used to determine line of play.
And from earlier
Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
...My interpretation is that the player may choose to use optional relief without penalty if that is the one method used to establish an IB lie. If another method is used to establish the IB lie (1m, DZ, rethrow) then the player may use optional relief, but a penalty throw is applied...
And if the rules were to be changed to achieve this, then probably the best way would be to simply include "back along LOP, from last point IB" as another option under 806.02.D and do away with 803.02.E all together.


Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
I'll admit that don't like free optional relief,
Fair enough, I am ambivalent on it. And yes it does feel slightly counter intuitive to pick a lie perpendicular, and then pick a lie back along LOP. The change in angle, is....surprising?

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
and it colors my analysis.
Really? It didn't show. [/friendly sarcasm ]
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-28-2020, 05:07 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 572 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesethin View Post
Cool! Good debating.
We devil's advocates appreciate appreciation like a tall, cool drink of water in a very dry desert.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesethin View Post
And from earlier


And if the rules were to be changed to achieve this, then probably the best way would be to simply include "back along LOP, from last point IB" as another option under 806.02.D and do away with 803.02.E all together.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesethin View Post
Fair enough, I am ambivalent on it. And yes it does feel slightly counter intuitive to pick a lie perpendicular, and then pick a lie back along LOP. The change in angle, is....surprising?
I've read that the primary concern free optional relief addressed is a hole like WACO #18, where a throw into the pond would mean the player's next lie was 1m from the shoreline, often giving the player poor footing and contributing to erosion. I support those goals; but on an L-shaped, tree-lined hole like WACO #17 (i.e. the case that started this thread), free optional relief may be unfair to other players. A better solution might be to encourage TDs to designate a Relief Area (806.04) when erosion (or some other aspect) is a concern.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-28-2020, 06:17 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46
Courses Played: 387
Posts: 5,191
Niced 1,904 Times in 932 Posts
Default

Interestingly, the existence of Relief Area (aka “No-Penalty OB”; the best and most under-utilized TD tool for unusual situations) is one reason the free optional relief has its own rule and is not listed among the OB lie options.

Quote:
806.04 A. … A relief area is played as an out-of-bounds area with the exception that no penalty throw is assessed to a player whose disc comes to rest in a relief area.
So, if free-move-back-from-the-last-point-in-bounds had been listed in the OB rules, it would have also applied to Relief Area. Nobody wanted that.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-29-2020, 01:51 AM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 572 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
806.02D also doesn't mention that the player can finish the hole by making another throw from where they marked the lie. Does it really need to? Or can the player move on to another rule after complying with 806.02D?

The rules would grow huge if every rule had to list everything that happens for the rest of the round for all possible outcomes AFTER that rule is complied with.
I was just suggesting that 802.02E could be deleted if instead,TDs were forcefully encouraged to create relief areas -- assuming that 806.04 (Relief Areas) were created to protect against erosion and/or not to over-penalize a player by forcing them to throw from sub-optimal footing (per Chuck). Maybe stating that 802.02E is not enforced unless a TD declares it., and that it may be declared on a hole-by-hole basis (like the 2m penalty).

What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-29-2020, 12:52 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46
Courses Played: 387
Posts: 5,191
Niced 1,904 Times in 932 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
I was just suggesting that 802.02E could be deleted if instead,TDs were forcefully encouraged to create relief areas -- assuming that 806.04 (Relief Areas) were created to protect against erosion and/or not to over-penalize a player by forcing them to throw from sub-optimal footing (per Chuck). Maybe stating that 802.02E is not enforced unless a TD declares it., and that it may be declared on a hole-by-hole basis (like the 2m penalty).

What do you think?
I would prefer not to forcefully encourage TDs to do anything in a top-down manner.* Give them the options and the information, but leave the choices to the TDs. Let the players, sponsors, viewers, and tour owners tell the TD what works and what doesn't.

I would think making players throw from bad footing would be very unpopular, so we wouldn't see that very often. (Though it probably wouldn't get as violent a reaction as placing the DZ for a Relief Area ahead of the Relief Area, allowing for forward teleportation for those who can land in the area.) Placing a DZ to force an interesting throw might be more popular.

The free OR rule is a manifestation of the idea of not piling-on penalties. The TD should not turn on and off basic ideas like this.

Players seem to manage to throw discs where the TD never imagined a disc could go. So, with hole-by-hole implementation, it would be possible for a TD to miss the very hole where the rule would be needed.

Besides, it would just add another complication, and complications should be minimized.

________________

*I know, I know: "What about how to set par?" Well...maybe just short of forcefully.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-29-2020, 03:05 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 572 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I would prefer not to forcefully encourage TDs to do anything in a top-down manner.* Give them the options and the information, but leave the choices to the TDs. Let the players, sponsors, viewers, and tour owners tell the TD what works and what doesn't.
I'm more concerned with Parks Dept, course owners, and other non disc golfers pulling courses for environmental protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I would think making players throw from bad footing would be very unpopular, so we wouldn't see that very often. (Though it probably wouldn't get as violent a reaction as placing the DZ for a Relief Area ahead of the Relief Area, allowing for forward teleportation for those who can land in the area.) Placing a DZ to force an interesting throw might be more popular.
(IMO) Popularity of a course/tournament design is really the TD's domain. The PDGA RC should focus on fairness, i.e. a balance of advantage, disadvantage, and random chance that nets out as close to zero as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
The free OR rule is a manifestation of the idea of not piling-on penalties. The TD should not turn on and off basic ideas like this.
Maybe it's the wording you chose, but that 1st sentence sure sounds like 801.02H. Just sayin'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Players seem to manage to throw discs where the TD never imagined a disc could go. So, with hole-by-hole implementation, it would be possible for a TD to miss the very hole where the rule would be needed.

Besides, it would just add another complication, and complications should be minimized.
I mostly agree; but the fact is that the 2m rule can be hole specific (though 99% it is either on or off for the entire course).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
*I know, I know: "What about how to set par?" Well...maybe just short of forcefully.
Ha! lol
Reply With Quote
 

  #60  
Old 03-29-2020, 03:59 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.9
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,371
Niced 388 Times in 237 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Well done! Most persuasive argument yet, I see no need to add anything more.



My earlier argument stipulates that optional relief after an OB is a member of a set of methods of which only one can be used to establish an IB lie. So, yes, just as the last point IB is used as the referent for 1m relief, it would be used to determine line of play.

However I agree that your interpretation is more consistent with the definitions of optional relief, lie, and line of play, whereas my argument is more consistent with establishing an IB lie after an OB. So, I'll concede the point because my interpretation is more disruptive to fundamental rules of play than yours.
I also appreciate your debating. It appears, once again, that cheesy was the more eloquent one. He (they) stated in clearer terms what I was trying to establish all along. The issue with what you were telling me is that optional relief can apply at any time, so I never saw making an "after-OB-specific" version or interpretation when I can choose to take optional relief at any other time as well, even if I have already placed my marker disc down.


Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
I'll admit that don't like free optional relief, and it colors my analysis.
I get that it can color our analysis. I know SEVERAL players who hate that you can re-throw from the previous lie after going OB on a putt. Ironically, almost to a person, they don't have that same thought about going OB from a throw, particularly if it is 250+ feet away. But they continue to tell me that they "do not like" that a player can be inside the circle (say 25') putting, hit the cage or top and roll 60' and out-of-bounds, and then get to mark & putt again from the previous spot 25' out. They tell me it "feels like a mulligan" and is a "stupid" incarnation" of the RC putting in the optional re-throw rule (now called abandoned throw) a few years back. I continue to tell them that it is now and has always been part of the OB rule, and that is wasn't new when the re-throw rule came in a few years back. But they STILL tell me they don't like it.

I could tell there was something coloring your thoughts by the way you kept phrasing that the player "should" only get one option after throwing OB. However, realize that if they were on the card with you and someone enforced it that way, they could still call provisional and take the "free optional relief" as their provisional throw and send it to the TD later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Let's take the case where player A's tee shot crosses OB, and player B's tee shot lands on the line. Both players take 1m relief and optional relief. Both are now throwing their third shot even though A was OB and B wasn't. It ain't right.
True, but B chose, without a need, to invoke a penalty. A was already forced to take one. B could just as easily, walked up to his lie and tossed a disc to the exact spot that A took optional relief from. Surely then, them both throwing 3 from the same spot doesn't bother you.

Niced: (1)
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
Apologies If Answered - Newish Rule About "Lie" and "Flipping Disc" phishbiscuits Rules Questions & Discussion 24 07-31-2019 02:13 PM
How to set "Years played" in the forum profile? wims Newbie Intros and Q&A 3 08-21-2014 07:37 PM
A couple old Omegas: "appoved" Q-mega and "no run" SS both SM Mold $20 each apdrvya The Marketplace 0 05-02-2012 01:11 PM
"The One Ring" GL Pain, 10/10 - The One Disc to Rule them All! yawpstang64 The Marketplace 6 08-10-2011 07:12 PM
2009 Special Edition Rocs "20 Years of Roc" #19325 Discs 37 09-09-2009 08:55 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.