#81  
Old 04-11-2020, 11:50 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.2
Courses Played: 390
Posts: 5,273
Niced 1,996 Times in 976 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post

803.02 D & E. Optional relief after an OB throw does not add additional penalty. You can go as far as you would for any other optional relief.
Correct, but if you are going to write things with numbers that look like rules, why not just quote the rules? Paraphrasing can cause trouble.

Quote:
803.02 Relief from Obstacles
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. One penalty throw is added to the player's score.
E. No penalty throw is added if optional relief is being taken following a penalty taken for a disc out-of-bounds or above two meters.

[ARCANITY] For example, the phrase "following a penalty" is actually quite important. Without it, the free optional relief could be taken after going into a Relief Area.

Quote:
806.04 Relief Area
A. A relief area is an area designated by the Director from which a disc may not be played, or any in-bounds area that players are prohibited by law from entering. 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.
To be clear:

You cannot take free optional relief after going into a Relief Area because you did not take a penalty for it.

If the two meter rule is not in effect, you cannot take free optional relief from a disc that is two meters above the playing surface because you did not take a penalty for it.[/ARCANITY]
Sponsored Links

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 04-12-2020, 04:10 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,451
Niced 463 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Steve,

Fair enough. I had read some things between the lines that maybe I shouldn't have.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-12-2020, 09:15 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,612
Niced 579 Times in 283 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
[color=blue]
Thanks for the sentiment. We are.
Fyi, I appreciate your style of discussion and debate.
Back at'cha.

[QUOTE=araytx;3573828]

No, I don't. I think 806.02F is speaking directly to the rule before it, 806.02E. Kinda like here's one thing about this situation (E), and immediately following here's another. (F).

I keep going back to this, but maybe you're missing my point. I've agreed that they are similar. And I understand that YOU refer to it that way. As an analogy, let me go to my years of experience officiating football, under the NCAA rulebook. As were trained the first emphasis in the rules is that "Football Rule-2" (FR-2), the definitions, is the most important one. Knowing the definitions under the rules means everyone is discussing the same thing when they say forward pass, handoff, tackle, holding, pass interference, etc. As a back judge and dealing with punts & kickoff return a lot, we have to know inside and out what constitutes a fumble vs what constitutes a muff. They have slightly different definitions and VERY different applications. A player who has control of the ball and has taken at least one step or football move before losing possession has FUMBLED. On kicks however, the act of touching the ball without gaining possession is a MUFF. It doesn't matter that many lay people see the kick returner not catch the kick in the air and it goes through his hands and say he "fumbled". As the BJ I have to know that it's a muff and that the kicking team can only recover it, they can't pick it up and advance or run with it like they could if it's a fumble. So, like I've said already, I agree that they are similar, but because they have different definitions under he rules, you have to treat them as different. It's just not "relief' when you select the lie after an OB throw. And I am asking that you confirm your understanding that in the rulebook the mark after OB isn't called "relief."


I understand; but the difference is that a fumble and a muff have different consequences on what happens immediately after.

Quote:
806.02F
The out-of-bounds line extends a vertical plane. When marking within one meter of the out-of-bounds line, the one-meter relief may be taken from any point up or down on the vertical plane.
The wording, 806.02F reads like it applies to all cases 806.02D5. I cannot discern any indication that it refers to anything other than treating the OB line as a plane, probably to cover when the disc doesn't come to rest on the playing surface and/or when the immediate IB area has multiple playing surfaces.

Another argument: Consider use of 803.02E after a 2m penalty: the player establishes the new lie directly under the disc, and would take OR from there. Hence, I'm thinking the 1m from OB to be a relief action unique to OB lines, not because the disc position was IB or OB.


All other things being equal, and the key here is what throw you're under. You can never say throwing 3 from the OB+OR spot is advantageous to throwing 2 from the 1-meter relief IB spot. Because they are not on the same throw. I'd agree that throwing 3 from the OB + OR spot IS advantageous to throwing 3 from the 1-meter relief IB spot. But that's not the case.
...


Hold muh beer

I can come up with several examples that depend on shot selection, poor balance, etc., I mean, there's a reason why the OB player took OR. But then I realized this is a distraction. The problem is that the two players have the same lie, the OB player has a penalty throw, why should the OB player get a better lie than the IB player?

I'll stop there.


I think that is an incorrect comparison. I agree the expected scores PRIOR to the hole are the same. Agree with you on that. HOWEVER, after player1 throws and is OB and then player2 throws and is IB at the same spot the other player went OB, that changes. Player2 is now nearly a full throw expected score better, let's just take your numbers for arguments sake, Player 2 is now -0.85 expected score (lower) on this hole than Player1, even with the OB + OR spot to throw from. I am not talking about the "from tee shot" expected score; I'm talking about from that time forward.


Do we agree that 15% of the time the OB+OR's score will be one throw better than OB only?


(I tried cyan -- hard on the eyes)
Without adding in my clear bias toward I agree with the RC on this particular rule, I have to say I AM NOT focused on whether or not it should exist. My argument, if it were being made in isolation, would be that without it the RC is being inconsistent in it’s philosophy that penalty throws should not stack, if they are saying in other places in the rule book, if you foot fault (legally called & seconded) and the throw lands in the hazard, or if you missed the mando but the disc cannot later be found, that THOSE situations only incur one penalty throw so this situation needs to be consistent with that philosophy.

Now in this particular situation, I can't say if Matt's utilizing OR would have helped that angle or not -- but I sure think he should have at least checked it out. I was watching live and he did not.


Agreed.


I see why that bothers you. But “having a better-shot/worse-angle/some-OB’s-get-good-angle some-don’t” happens all the time. For this hole, for example, before they tee-off, all players KNOW that challenging the OB on the right might give you a good opportunity to utilize 803.02F, whereas challenging the OB on the left would not. And vice versa for the opposite dogleg. That has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with the essence of disc golf execution: shot selection, disc selection, decision-making and proper technique/execution. I don’t get why that .15 should bother you though. Player1 has a .15 chance of equalling Player2; that’s a small chance and he has to be totally precise AND still take more risk, than Player2 – BECAUSE P1 is OB and P2 is not. That’s why I keep reading between the lines, that you just don’t like the rule. Do you understand at all what I am getting at?


This discussion has helped my distill my objection: After the the players mark their lies at (say, 1 meter), both have IB lies, and one player has a OB penalty. This is true on all hole designs (doglegs, water holes, etc.). Why does the OB player get free OR after marking an IB lie?

I'd like to add to D50's question: Can a player take OR behind the tee box? The rule does not set a limit.

Quote:
803.02D
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. One penalty throw is added to the player's score.
The world is round, right?
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-12-2020, 10:53 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,451
Niced 463 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Back at'cha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post

No, I don't. I think 806.02F is speaking directly to the rule before it, 806.02E. Kinda like here's one thing about this situation (E), and immediately following here's another. (F).

I keep going back to this, but maybe you're missing my point. I've agreed that they are similar. And I understand that YOU refer to it that way. As an analogy, let me go to my years of experience officiating football, under the NCAA rulebook. As were trained the first emphasis in the rules is that "Football Rule-2" (FR-2), the definitions, is the most important one. Knowing the definitions under the rules means everyone is discussing the same thing when they say forward pass, handoff, tackle, holding, pass interference, etc. As a back judge and dealing with punts & kickoff return a lot, we have to know inside and out what constitutes a fumble vs what constitutes a muff. They have slightly different definitions and VERY different applications. A player who has control of the ball and has taken at least one step or football move before losing possession has FUMBLED. On kicks however, the act of touching the ball without gaining possession is a MUFF. It doesn't matter that many lay people see the kick returner not catch the kick in the air and it goes through his hands and say he "fumbled". As the BJ I have to know that it's a muff and that the kicking team can only recover it, they can't pick it up and advance or run with it like they could if it's a fumble. So, like I've said already, I agree that they are similar, but because they have different definitions under he rules, you have to treat them as different. It's just not "relief' when you select the lie after an OB throw. And I am asking that you confirm your understanding that in the rulebook the mark after OB isn't called "relief."
I understand; but the difference is that a fumble and a muff have different consequences on what happens immediately after.
Bingo!!! Correct!!!! I agree!!!!!!!
As do "relief" (for an inbounds throw within a meter of OB) and establishing a lie after an OB or above 2-meters throw with penalty. And the second one is still not 'relief', whether you call it that or not.

btw, You still haven't agreed that the lie after OB is not called relief in the book. Only 806.02F mentions that word, and as I have stated, F is referring back to E. Exactly the same way 803.02E is speaking to 803.02D, the rule directly preceding. You've stated earlier that YOU like to call it that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey
The wording, 806.02F reads like it applies to all cases 806.02D5. I cannot discern any indication that it refers to anything other than treating the OB line as a plane, probably to cover when the disc doesn't come to rest on the playing surface and/or when the immediate IB area has multiple playing surfaces.

Another argument: Consider use of 803.02E after a 2m penalty: the player establishes the new lie directly under the disc, and would take OR from there. Hence, I'm thinking the 1m from OB to be a relief action unique to OB lines, not because the disc position was IB or OB.

You at least have a consistent stance and choice of wording. It's "I'm thinking" it's 'relief', or "I consider" it to be 'relief'. Never 806.02 D (throw/relocation after OB) says it's 'relief'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey[color=green
All other things being equal, and the key here is what throw you're under. You can never say throwing 3 from the OB+OR spot is advantageous to throwing 2 from the 1-meter relief IB spot. Because they are not on the same throw. I'd agree that throwing 3 from the OB + OR spot IS advantageous to throwing 3 from the 1-meter relief IB spot. But that's not the case.
...
[/color]

Hold muh beer

I can come up with several examples that depend on shot selection, poor balance, etc., I mean, there's a reason why the OB player took OR. But then I realized this is a distraction. The problem is that the two players have the same lie, the OB player has a penalty throw, why should the OB player get a better lie than the IB player?

I'll stop there.
And the easy answer:
He was penalized one throw. I can think of plenty of times I wanted my OB opponent to be walled up against a thicket or back close to the soft ground where he went in the water, instead of at an "easy-to-access-the-pin" drop zone. But alas, he had a penalty throw, so I can't complain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey

I think that is an incorrect comparison. I agree the expected scores PRIOR to the hole are the same. Agree with you on that. HOWEVER, after player1 throws and is OB and then player2 throws and is IB at the same spot the other player went OB, that changes. Player2 is now nearly a full throw expected score better, let's just take your numbers for arguments sake, Player 2 is now -0.85 expected score (lower) on this hole than Player1, even with the OB + OR spot to throw from. I am not talking about the "from tee shot" expected score; I'm talking about from that time forward.


Do we agree that 15% of the time the OB+OR's score will be one throw better than OB only?
YES. I absolutely agree with that.
Unfortunately for your argument, that is NOT the situation here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey

(I tried cyan -- hard on the eyes)
Without adding in my clear bias toward I agree with the RC on this particular rule, I have to say I AM NOT focused on whether or not it should exist. My argument, if it were being made in isolation, would be that without it the RC is being inconsistent in it’s philosophy that penalty throws should not stack, if they are saying in other places in the rule book, if you foot fault (legally called & seconded) and the throw lands in the hazard, or if you missed the mando but the disc cannot later be found, that THOSE situations only incur one penalty throw so this situation needs to be consistent with that philosophy.

Now in this particular situation, I can't say if Matt's utilizing OR would have helped that angle or not -- but I sure think he should have at least checked it out. I was watching live and he did not.


Agreed.
Awesome! Yay!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey

I see why that bothers you. But “having a better-shot/worse-angle/some-OB’s-get-good-angle some-don’t” happens all the time. For this hole, for example, before they tee-off, all players KNOW that challenging the OB on the right might give you a good opportunity to utilize 803.02F, whereas challenging the OB on the left would not. And vice versa for the opposite dogleg. That has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with the essence of disc golf execution: shot selection, disc selection, decision-making and proper technique/execution. I don’t get why that .15 should bother you though. Player1 has a .15 chance of equalling Player2; that’s a small chance and he has to be totally precise AND still take more risk, than Player2 – BECAUSE P1 is OB and P2 is not. That’s why I keep reading between the lines, that you just don’t like the rule. Do you understand at all what I am getting at?


This discussion has helped my distill my objection: After the the players mark their lies at (say, 1 meter), both have IB lies, and one player has a OB penalty. This is true on all hole designs (doglegs, water holes, etc.). Why does the OB player get free OR after marking an IB lie?

I'd like to add to D50's question: Can a player take OR behind the tee box? The rule does not set a limit.


Same answer as above. He took the penalty. Penalties should not stack. RC is being consistent about that throughout the rulebook. I know you're into the "should" it be correct, but my reasoning remains. THIS cleanup a couple years ago made the RC consistent with the other instances where there are multiple possible penalties prior to the next throw. Consistency is primo imho.

And to answer D50's question (he's actually a compatriot; we live in the same small town in Texas), by rule (currently) the answer is YES. I may not like that part myself, but it is clear. I also believe Steve addressed the same thing in post# earlier in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey
The world is round, right?
Thomas Friedman makes good arguments. It's worth the read. Less than $10 on Amazon Kindlebooks.

But seriously, I guess it works that way for me, too. I mean I keep circling back to the same arguments, i hope, because that's what the rules say. I'd like to believe I'm using more accurate rule references.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-12-2020, 11:21 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.2
Courses Played: 390
Posts: 5,273
Niced 1,996 Times in 976 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
btw, You still haven't agreed that the lie after OB is not called relief in the book.
Why does it matter whether it is relief or not?
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 04-12-2020, 11:55 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,612
Niced 579 Times in 283 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Bingo!!! Correct!!!! I agree!!!!!!!

As do "relief" (for an inbounds throw within a meter of OB) and establishing a lie after an OB or above 2-meters throw with penalty. And the second one is still not 'relief', whether you call it that or not.
The difference is that immediate action following a fumble is different than the immediate action following a muff; hence two different labels for a dropped ball. The immediate action following an OB or IB within 3m, is exactly the same (establishing a lie along a 1m line ...).

So...


btw, You still haven't agreed that the lie after OB is not called relief in the book. Only 806.02F mentions that word, and as I have stated, F is referring back to E. Exactly the same way 803.02E is speaking to 803.02D, the rule directly preceding. You've stated earlier that YOU like to call it that.

You at least have a consistent stance and choice of wording. It's "I'm thinking" it's 'relief', or "I consider" it to be 'relief'. Never 806.02 D (throw/relocation after OB) says it's 'relief'.


Since 806.02E describes the exact same action 3 times. It is only labeled once. Since, in total, the same action is described multiple times and labeled once, I conclude/consider/think the same label applies to the same action, just as I would consider it to be the same action if only the label was included in the text.


And the easy answer:
He was penalized one throw. I can think of plenty of times I wanted my OB opponent to be walled up against a thicket or back close to the soft ground where he went in the water, instead of at an "easy-to-access-the-pin" drop zone. But alas, he had a penalty throw, so I can't complain.


(We must resist Schadenfreude)

Easy response: That's a TD issue, not a rules issue.


(teemkey: Do we agree that 15% of the time the OB+OR's score will be one throw better than OB only?)

YES. I absolutely agree with that.
Unfortunately for your argument, that is NOT the situation here.


The situation is that, after marking a meter IB, the IB and OB have the same lie. How is it not the same situation?


Awesome! Yay!


Sorry, I misread your comment. Having a bad day.


Same answer as above. He took the penalty. Penalties should not stack. RC is being consistent about that throughout the rulebook. I know you're into the "should" it be correct, but my reasoning remains. THIS cleanup a couple years ago made the RC consistent with the other instances where there are multiple possible penalties prior to the next throw. Consistency is primo imho.


I just don't see where stacking is occurring when the lie for the OB player is the exact same as for the IB player.


And to answer D50's question (he's actually a compatriot; we live in the same small town in Texas), by rule (currently) the answer is YES. I may not like that part myself, but it is clear. I also believe Steve addressed the same thing in post# earlier in this thread.



Thomas Friedman makes good arguments. It's worth the read. Less than $10 on Amazon Kindlebooks.

But seriously, I guess it works that way for me, too. I mean I keep circling back to the same arguments, i hope, because that's what the rules say. I'd like to believe I'm using more accurate rule references.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 04-13-2020, 08:10 AM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,451
Niced 463 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Why does it matter whether it is relief or not?
Imho it doesn't. But it's teem's argument that you can't get two reliefs and only one penalty.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 04-13-2020, 01:41 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,612
Niced 579 Times in 283 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Imho it doesn't. But it's teem's argument that you can't get two reliefs and only one penalty.
Not really. I'm fine if the second relief is asserted because of the lie obtained from the first. For example, if using 1m relief lands the player in a puddle (or a fire ant mound), casual relief is warranted (equally, for both the IB & OB players).
Reply With Quote
 

  #89  
Old 04-13-2020, 02:05 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,451
Niced 463 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
(We must resist Schadenfreude)
You are right. But I was saying that not for my pleasure but to try and select and analogy to the “why does the OB player get a better lie than the IB player?” thing you kept asking. But let’s bypass that. I’ll give you that one.

I am gonna give it one last point trying to show you the analogy, but I’ll leave this thread absent any more direct questions:

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
The difference is that immediate action following a fumble is different than the immediate action following a muff; hence two different labels for a dropped ball. The immediate action following an OB or IB within 3m, is exactly the same (establishing a lie along a 1m line ...).
But alas, teemkey, I think you’re not seeing it there. What do the players do after a fumble? They scratch, claw, block, and try to do everything they can to allow their own team to fall on that ball or scoop it up and run with it. And I’ve been a back judge. They do the exact same thing after a muffed punt or kickoff. And if they scoop it up and start runing the players never stop. It's incumbent on me, the official, to blow my whistle and tell them they don't get to.

It’s only what happens with the rule enforcers (the officials) that is different. Players do exact same thing. Rule enforcement is different – due to different definitions under the rules.

However, hearing Steve bring the following to me attention … I can moot this point as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Why does it matter whether it is relief or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Imho it doesn't. But it's teem's argument that you can't get two reliefs and only one penalty.
And Steve, you are correct. We (he & I) are lasering in on one element, when we (the cololective 'we') all know that the rulebook (in general) does allow for BOTH penalty-free AND penalty-applied 'relief' as various places. I'm just personally with cheesethin and you in my interp, but you're right it doesn't matter whether it's 'relief' or not after an OB throw is for our position. I was just trying to convince him using his words/position; I don't think that is going to work.

I think it is clear that the 806.02D & E, combined with QA-OB-04 make it clear that the OB player is allowed and only one total penalty stroke is applied. Teemkey, even by his own statement (post #35), says that he agrees that the player can utilize optional relief for free here, "as long as he didn't mark the within 1-meter from the OB spot first." To me that just doesn't make sense. Is there any other place where I player places his marker down and is "STUCK"? I don't see it. I just don't. We're basically arguing procedure here and you're right. It doesn't matter. I realize now I was caught in the minutia, the "forest vs trees" thing.
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 02:37 AM.


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