2023 Des Moines Challenge

[ChrisWoj]

I'd like to hear what you think the rules say - after you've re-read them with this question in mind.

Sure.

809.02 - Provisional Throw
A. A provisional throw is an extra throw that is not added to a player's score if it is not ultimately used in the completion of the hole. The player must inform the group that a throw is provisional prior to making it.

B. Provisional throws are used:
B.1. (scenarios in which a provisional may be used to save time)
B.2. To appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when a player in the group disagrees with a group decision and an Official is not readily available, or if a player in the group wishes to appeal the decision of an Official. The scores from both sets of throws are recorded. Once the appeal has been resolved, only the score from the correct set of throws is counted.



A provisional throw is used to appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies.

It is safe to say that members of Gannon's group made a ruling on the situation that Gannon did not agree with - that he may not move the stick. Gannon chose to play a provisional shot, in order to appeal that ruling. As, with the removal of the stick the lie inherently changed because of the newfound access to footing within the lie, this was a situation where he could appeal the ruling that he could not move the stick.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Sure.

809.02 - Provisional Throw
A. A provisional throw is an extra throw that is not added to a player's score if it is not ultimately used in the completion of the hole. The player must inform the group that a throw is provisional prior to making it.

B. Provisional throws are used:
B.1. (scenarios in which a provisional may be used to save time)
B.2. To appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when a player in the group disagrees with a group decision and an Official is not readily available, or if a player in the group wishes to appeal the decision of an Official. The scores from both sets of throws are recorded. Once the appeal has been resolved, only the score from the correct set of throws is counted.



A provisional throw is used to appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies.

It is safe to say that members of Gannon's group made a ruling on the situation that Gannon did not agree with - that he may not move the stick. Gannon chose to play a provisional shot, in order to appeal that ruling. As, with the removal of the stick the lie inherently changed because of the newfound access to footing within the lie, this was a situation where he could appeal the ruling that he could not move the stick.

The resulting lies were not different. He placed his marker and did not move it to a different location before removing the stick. In fact, leaving your thrown disc on the surface or placing your marker is the proper procedure when planning to move items on your lie.

 

[ChrisWoj]

The resulting lies were not different. He placed his marker and did not move it to a different location before removing the stick. In fact, leaving your thrown disc on the surface or placing your marker is the proper procedure when planning to move items on your lie.

The word used is different. The rulebook does not specify that the lie must be in a different location. It just says "different." I already responded to you regarding this in post 104 in this thread, and further elaborated on it in post 106. My response to you illustrating how the lie became different can be found in those posts.

 

[foxdawg10]

Sure.

809.02 - Provisional Throw
A. A provisional throw is an extra throw that is not added to a player's score if it is not ultimately used in the completion of the hole. The player must inform the group that a throw is provisional prior to making it.

B. Provisional throws are used:
B.1. (scenarios in which a provisional may be used to save time)
B.2. To appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when a player in the group disagrees with a group decision and an Official is not readily available, or if a player in the group wishes to appeal the decision of an Official. The scores from both sets of throws are recorded. Once the appeal has been resolved, only the score from the correct set of throws is counted.



A provisional throw is used to appeal a ruling when there are different resulting lies.

It is safe to say that members of Gannon's group made a ruling on the situation that Gannon did not agree with - that he may not move the stick. Gannon chose to play a provisional shot, in order to appeal that ruling. As, with the removal of the stick the lie inherently changed because of the newfound access to footing within the lie, this was a situation where he could appeal the ruling that he could not move the stick.

The lie never changed, it is still the same 20cm x 30 cm box centered behind the disc.

Moving a stick never changed the lie, it simply changed where Gannon could take a stance within the lie.

You ignore that playing surface is italicized in 802.05 A, hence the remainder of A refers to the playing surface. The lie is defined by B, C and D, according to your structure of the rule book and the use of italics.

I'm pretty sure at this point we have gone around the same circle multiple times.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The word used is different. The rulebook does not specify that the lie must be in a different location. It just says "different." I already responded to you regarding this in post 104 in this thread, and further elaborated on it in post 106. My response to you illustrating how the lie became different can be found in those posts.

Well, your interpretation of different lies is incorrect. Player being able to take a different stance is not a different lie.

 

[foxdawg10]

Repeat after me:

There was an object in his lie that prevented him from taking a stance on the playing surface.

NOT

There was an object in his stance that prevented him from taking a lie on the playing surface.

 

[ChrisWoj]

The lie never changed, it is still the same 20cm x 30 cm box centered behind the disc.

Moving a stick never changed the lie, it simply changed where Gannon could take a stance within the lie.

You ignore that playing surface is italicized in 802.05 A, hence the remainder of A refers to the playing surface. The lie is defined by B, C and D, according to your structure of the rule book and the use of italics.

I'm pretty sure at this point we have gone around the same circle multiple times.

We have. And at no point have you actually engaged with the substance of what I have said: my actual section by section look at what the rules SAY. The lie is defined in A where it is in italics - before where playing surface is italicized. B, C, and D support the definition with location and perimeter. Neither of those preclude the lie from changing, from becoming distinct, in some other way.

Well, your interpretation of different lies is incorrect. Player being able to take a different stance is not a different lie.

The rulebook does not outline any limitations regarding how a lie may be different. It only states that the lie need be different. You're describing JUST ONE WAY in which it could be different - its location in space. The word different is defined in many ways including, but not requiring all of: distinct, unique, separate... and more.

Again, here is the manner in which the lie becomes different:

The lie is defined in 802.05.A as on the playing surface. It is not defined as having a vertical depth or thickness in 802.05.D. It is a flat plane, 20x30cm, on a playing surface.

The casual obstacle that the player is seeking to move is also defined as on the playing surface. Casual obstacles are differentiated from playing surface in 803.01.B.1.

The rules do not seem to indicate that the lie and the obstacle stack, therefore I assume that where the obstacle and the lie both touch the playing surface, they are occupying the same space.

The lie is defined in 802.05A as "the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw" implicating the player's ability to take a stance as a necessary condition of a lie. Where the obstacle is on the surface, a lie cannot exist because a player can not take a lie in that space, due to the occupancy of that space by the obstacle.

Removal of the obstacle means that a player can now take a stance in that space, the 20x30cm space no longer has the same topography. It is different. The lie is necessarily different from before once the stick is removed.

For clarity, see attached:

 

[foxdawg10]

We have. And at no point have you actually engaged with the substance of what I have said: my actual section by section look at what the rules SAY. The lie is defined in A where it is in italics - before where playing surface is italicized. B, C, and D support the definition with location and perimeter. Neither of those preclude the lie from changing, from becoming distinct, in some other way.

The rulebook does not outline any limitations regarding how a lie may be different. It only states that the lie need be different. You're describing JUST ONE WAY in which it could be different - its location in space. The word different is defined in many ways including, but not requiring all of: distinct, unique, separate... and more.

Again, here is the manner in which the lie becomes different:

The lie is defined in 802.05.A as on the playing surface. It is not defined as having a vertical depth or thickness in 802.05.D. It is a flat plane, 20x30cm, on a playing surface.

The casual obstacle that the player is seeking to move is also defined as on the playing surface. Casual obstacles are differentiated from playing surface in 803.01.B.1.

The rules do not seem to indicate that the lie and the obstacle stack, therefore I assume that where the obstacle and the lie both touch the playing surface, they are occupying the same space.

The lie is defined in 802.05A as "the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw" implicating the player's ability to take a stance as a necessary condition of a lie. Where the obstacle is on the surface, a lie cannot exist because a player can not take a lie in that space, due to the occupancy of that space by the obstacle.

Removal of the obstacle means that a player can now take a stance in that space, the 20x30cm space no longer has the same topography. It is different. The lie is necessarily different from before once the stick is removed.

For clarity, see attached:

This is because we have a basic and fundamental difference of understanding.

The rules could not be any more clear. And you insist on warping them for your own stubborn purposes.

 

[ChrisWoj]

This is because we have a basic and fundamental difference of understanding.

The rules could not be any more clear. And you insist on warping them for your own stubborn purposes.

The rules could not be any more clear. And I have used the direct exact definitions of words to show how the rules are clearly written poorly. Nothing has been twisted. Nothing has been warped. And thus far you have failed to provide any example of me actually warping anything. You have not shown a single space where I stretched a word's definition beyond its conventional usage, or shown a space in the rulebook that indicates that one of my implications is incorrect.

Yourself and txmxer have both used judgement and discretion that would result in smoother disc golf rounds, because those things align with our sense of how the game should be played. But the actual words used by the actual rulebook don't support that. The rulebook has a flaw that was exposed by this particular edge case.

 

[foxdawg10]

The rules could not be any more clear. And I have used the direct exact definitions of words to show how the rules are clearly written poorly. Nothing has been twisted. Nothing has been warped. And thus far you have failed to provide any example of me actually warping anything. You have not shown a single space where I stretched a word's definition beyond its conventional usage, or shown a space in the rulebook that indicates that one of my implications is incorrect.

Yourself and txmxer have both used judgement and discretion that would result in smoother disc golf rounds, because those things align with our sense of how the game should be played. But the actual words used by the actual rulebook don't support that. The rulebook has a flaw that was exposed by this particular edge case.

You conveniently ignored that Chuck Kennedy agreed with this definition.

You are really all in with your rogue definitions and rule.

Based on this, if I ever had a chance to play with you, I would turn it down. You seem like that guy on the card that people want to avoid.

 

[foxdawg10]

The rules could not be any more clear. And I have used the direct exact definitions of words to show how the rules are clearly written poorly. Nothing has been twisted. Nothing has been warped. And thus far you have failed to provide any example of me actually warping anything. You have not shown a single space where I stretched a word's definition beyond its conventional usage, or shown a space in the rulebook that indicates that one of my implications is incorrect.

Yourself and txmxer have both used judgement and discretion that would result in smoother disc golf rounds, because those things align with our sense of how the game should be played. But the actual words used by the actual rulebook don't support that. The rulebook has a flaw that was exposed by this particular edge case.

Do you or do you not agree with this? If you don't you are just being willfully ignorant to the way the rules are written:

Repeat after me:

There was an object in his lie that prevented him from taking a stance on the playing surface.

NOT

There was an object in his stance that prevented him from taking a lie on the playing surface.


You are honestly writing like someone who has never played golf OR disc golf in his life, and just simply wants to argue.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Do you or do you not agree with this? If you don't you are just being willfully ignorant to the way the rules are written:

Repeat after me:

There was an object in his lie that prevented him from taking a stance on the playing surface.

NOT

There was an object in his stance that prevented him from taking a lie on the playing surface.


You are honestly writing like someone who has never played golf OR disc golf in his life, and just simply wants to argue.

The lie is defined in 802.05.A as on the playing surface. It is not defined as having a vertical depth or thickness in 802.05.D. It is a flat plane, 20x30cm, on a playing surface.

The casual obstacle that the player is seeking to move is also defined as on the playing surface. Casual obstacles are differentiated from playing surface in 803.01.B.1.

The rules do not seem to indicate that the lie and the obstacle stack, therefore I assume that where the obstacle and the lie both touch the playing surface, they are occupying the same space.

The lie is defined in 802.05A as "the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw" implicating the player's ability to take a stance as a necessary condition of a lie. Where the obstacle is on the surface, a lie cannot exist because a player can not take a lie in that space, due to the occupancy of that space by the obstacle.

Removal of the obstacle means that a player can now take a stance in that space, the 20x30cm space no longer has the same topography. It is different. The lie is necessarily different from before once the stick is removed.

For clarity, see attached:

Nothing twisted. Nothing warped. The direct words in the rulebook, using conventional understanding of the words in the rulebook.

Yourself and txmxer have both used judgement and discretion that would result in smoother disc golf rounds, because those things align with our sense of how the game should be played. But the actual words used by the actual rulebook don't support that. The rulebook has a flaw that was exposed by this particular edge case.

 

[Cgkdisc]

But the actual words used by the actual rulebook don't support that. The rulebook has a flaw that was exposed by this particular edge case.

The actual rules in the book say GB could move the stick. First, that was ignored. Second, the group did not follow the provisions for calling provisionals thinking GB was allowed to do so and they let him with no protest. No one said he wasn't allowed to call the provisional so GB did not have to call the appeal and claim he was allowed to because the lies were potentially different. Had they taken the time to check the rule book, they might have confirmed he could move the stick OR realized this was not a case for calling a provisional. Whether anyone would have told GB he couldn't move the stick, he then moved it, threw, and later appealed that he shouldn't be penalized for practice throws (because Woj said he could claim different lies) is unlikely. If anyone was clever enough to do that, they were clever enough to check or know the rules in the first place and not go down that path.

 

[foxdawg10]

The lie is defined in 802.05.A as on the playing surface. It is not defined as having a vertical depth or thickness in 802.05.D. It is a flat plane, 20x30cm, on a playing surface.

The casual obstacle that the player is seeking to move is also defined as on the playing surface. Casual obstacles are differentiated from playing surface in 803.01.B.1.

The rules do not seem to indicate that the lie and the obstacle stack, therefore I assume that where the obstacle and the lie both touch the playing surface, they are occupying the same space.

The lie is defined in 802.05A as "the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw" implicating the player's ability to take a stance as a necessary condition of a lie. Where the obstacle is on the surface, a lie cannot exist because a player can not take a lie in that space, due to the occupancy of that space by the obstacle.

Removal of the obstacle means that a player can now take a stance in that space, the 20x30cm space no longer has the same topography. It is different. The lie is necessarily different from before once the stick is removed.

For clarity, see attached:

Nothing twisted. Nothing warped. The direct words in the rulebook, using conventional understanding of the words in the rulebook.

Yourself and txmxer have both used judgement and discretion that would result in smoother disc golf rounds, because those things align with our sense of how the game should be played. But the actual words used by the actual rulebook don't support that. The rulebook has a flaw that was exposed by this particular edge case.

Chillax Karen.

 

[ChrisWoj]

The actual rules in the book say GB could move the stick. First, that was ignored

It was? The earliest posts on this topic indicate that the group could not come to an agreement. It doesn't sound ignored as much as disputed, someone (I'm assuming Gannon) thought they knew the right of it.

This is a space where I think the Pro Tour can be different than the rest of PDGA sanctioned events. The tour is in position to regularly have stacks of rulebooks available to be provided to every player and caddy every event. The PDGA can't guarantee as much because they're dealing with orders of magnitude more players, and it is unfair financially to require everyone to buy a new rulebook every time they lose or damage one beyond readability. The DGPT can definitely install a rule to penalize the players on the course for being found to not have a rulebook in their possession during a DGPT round.

Second, the group did not follow the provisions for calling provisionals thinking GB was allowed to do so and they let him with no protest. No one said he wasn't allowed to call the provisional so GB did not have to call the appeal and claim he was allowed to because the lies were potentially different.

I actually totally agree with you if this was the scenario. As Steve noted earlier in responding to me - there is requirement for an appeal of a ruling. Based on the posts made here and my viewing of the JomezPro footage I assumed that the posts here had the right of it: there was no agreement on the proper call. Indicating cardmates had made a ruling that Gannon disagreed with.

If it is as you said, that there was no disagreement within the group, and no one was disputing that Gannon could move the stick, then there was no reason to throw the provisional and Gannon should have only played the lie after moving the stick.

Had they taken the time to check the rule book, they might have confirmed he could move the stick OR realized this was not a case for calling a provisional.

Assuming there was disagreement over the ruling, which you're saying did not exist and so becomes a hypothetical: Had they checked the rulebook and STILL had a disagreement, this would have been a case for calling a provisional, because the lie that results is topographically different. Key word being: the lie is different. The rulebook, as noted and as you have not disputed, only specifies that the lie that results must be different. It is, in fact, different after moving the stick.

Whether anyone would have told GB he couldn't move the stick, he then moved it, threw, and later appealed that he shouldn't be penalized for practice throws (because Woj said he could claim different lies) is unlikely. If anyone was clever enough to do that, they were clever enough to check or know the rules in the first place and not go down that path.

I wouldn't refer to it as clever. If someone told Gannon he couldn't do it, and he argued he shouldn't be penalized for taking his provisional - there's every chance someone in your position would say what you are and he would accept it and move on.

And he'd be wrong to accept it, based on the flawed but clear wording in the rulebook.

 

[Steve West]

Saying "the lie is different" is not the same as saying "there are different lies".

In fact, saying "the lie is different" means there is only one lie, not two. The rule uses the plural "lies".

If you paint a house, the house is different, but there aren't different houses.

 

[txmxer]

I've never spent a dime on a rulebook, but somehow manage to have a (digital) copy of the rules going back to 1978.

I'm not a professional whose job it is to both play disc golf and know the rules of disc golf, but somehow, I managed to be aware that moving a stick as described was specifically addressed in the Q&A.

Nothing I've said suggests that the correct actions for the group were to use judgement. The correct actions were to know the rules and apply the rules appropriately.

If the group as a whole cannot render judgement because they don't know the rule, then it seems to me that 801.3.A. explicitly addresses the issue.

There are very limited times when one can take a provisional throw. This wasn't one of them.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Saying "the lie is different" is not the same as saying "there are different lies".

In fact, saying "the lie is different" means there is only one lie, not two. The rule uses the plural "lies".

If you paint a house, the house is different, but there aren't different houses.

I was wrong.

Thank you for actually engaging with the substance of what I was saying. That was all I was asking when I entered into this discussion, and I'm happy to find out I was wrong.

 

[foxdawg10]

I was wrong.

Thank you for actually engaging with the substance of what I was saying. That was all I was asking when I entered into this discussion, and I'm happy to find out I was wrong.

An apology for wasting our time and energy would be nice, but I suppose I will be happy with an admission you were wrong.

We have all been telling you that you were wrong for days, but I'm glad something finally clicked with you. The reason we didn't engage you is that it was painfully obvious from the beginning you just wanted to argue, and I refuse to entertain that.

 

[ChrisWoj]

An apology for wasting our time and energy would be nice, but I suppose I will be happy with an admission you were wrong.

We have all been telling you that you were wrong for days, but I'm glad something finally clicked with you. The reason we didn't engage you is that it was painfully obvious from the beginning you just wanted to argue, and I refuse to entertain that.

THEN WHY THE DUCK DIDNT YOUR SMART ASS ACTUALLY ENGAGE THE CONTENT OF MY POST AND TELL ME HOW I WAS WRONG DAYS AGO.

You were so ****ing eager to get to say "you're wrong" that you decided to avoid being helpful and actually engaging with my argument at all. If you had any capability of doing that, then **** you for choosing not to just to be as big a dick as possible and push this all on for days.

It wasn't any work AT ALL for Steve to actually engage with the content of what I said and point out where the flaw in my logic existed. You had no interest in any of that.