#41  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:18 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 571 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.
Sorry Steve, I'm not clear what you're objecting to. 806.02D is about establishing a lie after an OB throw, not throwing or what happens after a throw.

My problem with binding the rule in time is 803.02E's phrase "following a penalty." What am I missing?
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:32 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.8
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,365
Niced 383 Times in 234 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post


Two things disturb me if a player can mark the lie on the 1m line *and* take optional relief from that lie without a penalty.

1) 806.02D enumerates the rules used to determine the lie after an OB. The wording ("or") indicates only one of the rules may be used. 802.06C also uses the singular "the applicable rule." Though not mentioned in the list of 806.02D, I am arguing that 803.02E is another rule that may be used by the player; but like the others must be the only rule applied.

2) 803.02E is poorly worded, in that "following a penalty" is unbounded. For example, if I throw OB on hole 4, do I get free optional relief for the rest of the round? That's not reasonable. I would bind the phrase to once the the next lie is established by rule, which allows using the rules as in my point 1, above.


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.
Exactly, Steve. Teem's "being disturbed" is being clouded by him trying to inherently tie the two rules -- 806.02 and 803.02 -- together when a throw goes out-of-bounds. They don't (because they ARE separate rules as he states) and they aren't (one is applied first, then the other). In fact many of us have stated in this thread that, procedurally, the player in this scenario should comply with 806.02, and make the mark of his choosing following the OB throw. After such compliance he may then elect to utilize 803.02 if he desires, make a new mark, and since it is optional relief after an OB throw, no additional penalty is applied.

Teem, surely, by now, you agree that the player may elect to take the optional relief here, right? He may do so at any time, right? So the only discussion point is, "does a additonal 1-throw penalty apply?" At least that's what I'm seeing.

Niced: (1)

Last edited by araytx; 03-27-2020 at 06:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:45 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.8
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,365
Niced 383 Times in 234 Posts
Default

And teem, I disagree that the "following a penalty" wording is unbounded. It is inherently tied to either an out-of-bounds or above two meters throw -- THAT throw.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-27-2020, 07:04 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 571 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Exactly, Steve. Teem's "being disturbed" is being clouded by him trying to inherently tie the two rules -- 806.02 and 803.02 -- together when a throw goes out-of-bounds. They don't (because they ARE separate rules as he states) and they aren't (one is applied first, then the other). In fact many of us have stated in this thread that, procedurally, the player in this scenario should comply with 806.02, and make the mark of his choosing following the OB throw. After such compliance he may then elect to utilize 803.02 if he desires, make a new mark, and since it is optional relief after an OB throw, no additional penalty is applied.

Teem, surely, by now, you agree that the player may elect to take the optional relief here, right? He may do so at any time, right? So the only discussion point is, "does a additonal 1-throw penalty apply?" At least that's what I'm seeing.
No. I stand by my earlier post. IF the RC had written 803.02E with something like "The player my take optional relief without penalty after establishing an IB lie under 806.02D," it would be clear.

btw, another wording issue is 803.02C

Quote:
A player who takes relief other than as allowed above receives one penalty throw.
and 803.02E is below it.

Sometimes literal interpretations are problematic
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-27-2020, 07:21 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 571 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
And teem, I disagree that the "following a penalty" wording is unbounded. It is inherently tied to either an out-of-bounds or above two meters throw -- THAT throw.
Most reasonable people would agree; but why not include a couple of clarifying words?

While thinking through this argument, I found myself parsing a "throw" into four steps:

1. Establish the lie
2. Take a legal stance
3. Throw the disc
4. Identify the resulting disc position

Most playing rules apply to the performance of one of these steps so that moving on to the next step changes the applicable rules (hence binding a rule's domain).
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-27-2020, 07:30 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.8
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,365
Niced 383 Times in 234 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
No. I stand by my earlier post. IF the RC had written 803.02E with something like "The player my take optional relief without penalty after establishing an IB lie under 806.02D," it would be clear.
...

Sometimes literal interpretations are problematic
Yes, teem, but rules-writers in all sports try very hard NOT to write procedures into the wording of a rule. They are different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Most reasonable people would agree; but why not include a couple of clarifying words?

While thinking through this argument, I found myself parsing a "throw" into four steps:

1. Establish the lie
2. Take a legal stance
3. Throw the disc
4. Identify the resulting disc position

Most playing rules apply to the performance of one of these steps so that moving on to the next step changes the applicable rules (hence binding a rule's domain).
Like Steve, I don't see the RC as thinking that wording in either section of 803.02 is ambiguous at all. But everyone has their opinion, as they say.

And speaking of, your definition or "parsing" as you call it of the 'throw', is all well and good. I, though, do not see how the rulebook supports that interpretation.

Last edited by araytx; 03-27-2020 at 07:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-27-2020, 07:51 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 571 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Yes, teem, but rules-writers in all sports try very hard NOT to write procedures into the wording of a rule. They are different things.



Like Steve, I don't see the RC as thinking that wording in either section of 803.02 is ambiguous at all. But everyone has their opinion, as they say.

And speaking of, your definition or "parsing" as you call it of the 'throw', is all well and good. I, though, do not see how the rulebook supports that interpretation.
Well it's a sequence that occurs in a certain order, and constrains a rule written for one situation being applied to a different situation -- making rule writing (and reading/interpreting) easier.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-27-2020, 10:47 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46
Courses Played: 387
Posts: 5,183
Niced 1,891 Times in 927 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Most reasonable people would agree; but why not include a couple of clarifying words?....
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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-27-2020, 11:50 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.8
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,365
Niced 383 Times in 234 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Well it's a sequence that occurs in a certain order, and constrains a rule written for one situation being applied to a different situation -- making rule writing (and reading/interpreting) easier.
You haven't confirmed my question to you yet. Do you agree that the player is allowed to choose the optional relief in this situation, and your only discrepancy is whether or not an additional one-throw penalty should apply?

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #50  
Old 03-28-2020, 12:01 AM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,601
Niced 571 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
You haven't confirmed my question to you yet. Do you agree that the player is allowed to choose the optional relief in this situation, and your only discrepancy is whether or not an additional one-throw penalty should apply?
Oh, sorry.

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.

Soin answer to your question, mostly yes.
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 05:50 PM.


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