Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
There's usually the potential of two lies the player can choose after most throws other than holing out. Imagine if a newbie group didn't know if the player could play from behind their thrown disc or had to use a marker? So, the group agreed to allow the player to call a provisional and play both lies. As a TD would you penalize the player for practice throws similar to GB's situation? Or perhaps the correct call should be a misplay with 2-stroke penalty?
Conventional is a descriptor denoting something is in accordance with what is generally observed. A "solid obstacle" does exist in a rulebook. A players bag is an odd case that is not covered in the rules. However if it is deemed to be, by convention, a solid obstacle and not a casual obstacle, that is how it would be played. Behind it. Because, with support from the Q&A, you can not play from atop it if it is deemed a solid obstacle because its top is not a playing surface. You'll note that I do not, through my posts, refer to casual obstacles as "conventional" anywhere else. This use was to specifically refer to the possible decisions around the player's bag that the disc landed in. I do not think there is something termed a "conventional solid obstacle" in the rulebook.
I do believe what I said, it sounds like there is a gap in our rules that would technically prevent players from throwing from atop casual obstacles if they're also failing to establish a contact point within their lie. It shouldn't be surprising, we have a new sport and a young rulebook that is constantly in flux. This is the sort of random gap that can only be really observed through edge cases - requiring a rule violation, a group without a rulebook or access to the rules online, a dispute over the reality of the rule, and then a player calling out another player (or in this case: an observer on a message board) for attempting to take a provisional.
The wood chips aren't waste, are they? How are they debris when they're an intentional part of the playing surface, placed there for a purpose?
Clearly it has not been avoided. It could really be cleaned up by simply adding a line indicating that the lie in some way DOES include the casual obstacle within the bounds of the lie, or that you CAN stand atop casual obstacles.
However per the actual wording, playing from on them is not a choice. We assume that it is a choice, because that makes the most sense given our background actually playing the game. But per the wording of the rulebook, as I've gone over section by section earlier, you don't get that choice.
C. None of the above.
I still firmly believe the verdict is that Gannon should have been allowed to throw the provisional, the ruling would have deemed that per his wishes he should have been allowed to move the stick, and he should have been forced to take the set of throws resulting from throwing with the stick moved.
actually, I could if I were an official. Please read the rules--all of them.
Are the players not responsible for knowing the rules and applying them correctly? If it is in black and white, we don't want players choosing to not apply the rules correctly for arbitrary reasons. Failure to know and enforce the rules is a courtesy violation is it not? It's a courtesy violation because it is unfair to the field of players.
In this case, the default position is to the benefit of the thrower or Gannon.
and you are wrong. You don't get to say that failure to know the rules means you can make up rules and interpretations and throw two shots every time the group is unsure of what to do.
Are you trying to say that an appeal has to be made before the throw? Or are you saying that Gannon gets penalized for failing to take it to the TD after the round? What do you mean that there was no appeal? The appeal comes later. Are you saying Gannon failed to approach an official later with an appeal and so his provisional was a practice throw?
Oh sorry, your gotcha totally got me. I was assuming in your vague hypothetical that you were a card member. Not an official. You totally got me.
Well. It's a good thing this specific case seems outlined under the rules to allow a provisional, because the lie does inherently change. I agree - you can't just throw two shots any time the group is unsure of what to do. In this case - it seems fine by the actual word of the rulebook.
And your childish and vague gotcha was asinine. The actual situation on the actual course that we are actually referring back to did not involve an official being present. I had no idea that you were introducing yourself as a present non-playing official, a new factor in the scenario already being discussed. I had a reason to make the assumption I did - because it fit the scenario we are referring back to.
That, of course, WOULD HAVE BEEN the correct sequence - if not for the fact that, per the actual words in the actual rulebook, he can call for a provisional. I haven't twisted anything - I've used the words of the rulebook directly as they are presented to us. You've ignored the rule of the book and used judgement/discretion that would support an interpretation that, though it makes sense to us as disc golfers wanting to get by on what we think should be, simply isn't in alignment with the actual wording of the actual rulebook.
