Another provisional question

[teemkey]

JC, I don't disagree that your interpretation is more fair; however, my problem here is that I can't find where the rules state this unambiguously.

804.06 (B)(2)
To appeal the group's or an official's ruling. A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal when the player disagrees with the group decision and an official is not readily available, or if the player wishes to appeal the decision of an official. The scores from both sets of throws shall be recorded. The proper ruling and score are then determined by the Director at the end of the round.

I can see where the highlighted phrase may lead to your interpretation; however the definition of provisional doesn't appear to require a declaration before the "first throw."

804.06 (A)
Provisional throws are extra throws that are not added to a player's score if they are not ultimately used in the completion of the hole. The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a player's lie and a provisional throw would expedite play, or when the thrower questions a ruling. The unused throws are not to be added to the thrower's score nor treated as practice throws as long as the player announces that such additional throws are provisional throws prior to making them.

The rule clearly states "additional throws." Since my first putt was a required throw in order to hole out, there are no "additional throws" to declare. Hence, I can't say your interpretation unambiguously follows from the rulebook.

For example, let's say the group could see the lie while still at the tee, and we had our disagreement there, then clearly there was no way I could declare a provisional before my original drive. Yet, and I think you would agree, I could state my intent to appeal, declare a provisional, throw it, then hole out each two sets of throws with my original and provisional drives.

I really think the main problem is that the IB and OB rulings resulted in the same lie. I'd like to see the RC clarify how to deal with that situation.

 

[jjpitt29]

If you are having a group "disagreement" and you are going to take provisionals to move on and let the td decide like you should, then the decision to use provisionals would have been made before you throw at all.

Before you throw need to say you are throwing the shot as the group ruled and then the other way too. If you don't say which one before hand then you are letting lots of stuff into the conversation that shouldn't be.

The rules don't state you have to say provisional before you throw, because I think it's implied that that declaration would be made before you throw at all in most situations.

The biggest situation I can think that you wouldn't announce your provisional before your first throw would be something like this. You throw ob or maybe have a possible lost disc. In that situation you could declare a provisional again and retee to save time if you are ob (playing stroke and distance) or if you might lose it, etc. That would be a situation to save time.

Anyway, Going back a few pages. I understand Conrad's response and it does make sense. But the rules don't read that way. I talked with some people over the weekend that have been Marshalls, state coordinators, TD's, etc... Everyone was in a agreement that if you were going to appeal, you needed to take provisionals and play the situation out both ways even if it's from the same lie. Most agree'd that playing it out once and appealing the penalty wouldn't be a bad way to do it, but from the way the rules are written right now, that doesn't seem to be the appropriate way to do it.

Until there is a rewrite of the rules or a clarification in terms of a Q & A it will be a point of contention for those few of us who care. Most people that play tournaments have no idea what provisionals are in the first place.....

 

[JC17393]

For example, let's say the group could see the lie while still at the tee, and we had our disagreement there, then clearly there was no way I could declare a provisional before my original drive. Yet, and I think you would agree, I could state my intent to appeal, declare a provisional, throw it, then hole out each two sets of throws with my original and provisional drives.

Here's the thing about this example...the provisional in this case isn't competing against the original throw. No matter what the ruling is in this case, the original throw counts. It CAN'T be a provisional throw in any way, shape, or form. The throw with which the provisional is competing in the case of an appeal is the subsequent throw from where the original throw came to rest.

Here's how the sequence goes with regard to "sets of throws"...

1. Original throw.

Provisional set #1
2. Penalty
3. Re-throw from the tee
4. Throw from lie resulting from re-throw
5. If necessary, etc.

Provisional set #2
2. Throw from lie resulting from original throw
3. If necessary, throw from lie resulting from 2.
4. If necessary, etc.

The TD's decision determines which set of throws is counted WITH the original throw.

804.06 Provisional Throws

A. Provisional throws are extra throws that are not added to a player's score if they are not ultimately used in the completion of the hole.

This is the key of my interpretation right here. If the throw can potentially be discarded should the ruling be in favor of another sequence, then the throw by definition is a provisional throw. So in teemkey's original example in which he wants to play two sets of throws from the same lie, both sets of throws are provisional because one of the sets is going to be discarded by the TD's ruling.

Therefore he has to declare his intent to throw a provisional before ANY throw from the disputed lie is made, be it the "first throw" or the "second throw". If he does not, then the first throw made from the lie is the only one he can count from the lie. He can't retroactively declare a throw to be provisional.

 

[teemkey]

First, I want to thank the posters who are contributing to this thread with patience and sincerity, especially JC & JJ, who have been hanging with me through this.

Sorry JC, I just don't think the first throw must be declared as a provisional, since the group has declared a ruling and I *must* hole out based on that ruling. It's only *after* I declare and throw a provisional that the two sets of throws become de facto provisional -- following your reasoning.

I really think the fact that the disputed OB/IB ruling results in the same position is the crux of our discussion.

Consider this: my disc hits the curb, then skitters another 15' where it comes to rest in the disputed position. The group makes it's decision and I declare my intent to appeal. Now that there are two separate lies, I *must* complete the hole using both lies in order to have a score for each lie. (Frankly, I'm not sure I'd have to declare a provisional once I stated I was appealing the decision.)

I'm uncertain about how does the single lie situation differs.

 

[JoakimBL]

This is the key of my interpretation right here. If the throw can potentially be discarded should the ruling be in favor of another sequence, then the throw by definition is a provisional throw.

Your saying it yourself: That is your interpretation. It's not definitive language that makes it clear. While I might tend to agree with your interpretation, others might not, and as long as it is a question of interpretation, by definition, it is not definitive.

In a more conventional scenraio, you will throw your provisional prior to arriving at the lie of the original throw. Therefor you declare that it is a provisional, so it is not a practice shot. In the case of an appeal, it's not as clear. I wouldn't call both sets provisionals. There is the group consensus, that you must play out, in order to hole out. If you want to appeal, I would call that set of throws provisionals, not both sets.

 

[JC17393]

First, I want to thank the posters who are contributing to this thread with patience and sincerity, especially JC & JJ, who have been hanging with me through this.

Sorry JC, I just don't think the first throw must be declared as a provisional, since the group has declared a ruling and I *must* hole out based on that ruling. It's only *after* I declare and throw a provisional that the two sets of throws become de facto provisional -- following your reasoning.

I really think the fact that the disputed OB/IB ruling results in the same position is the crux of our discussion.

Consider this: my disc hits the curb, then skitters another 15' where it comes to rest in the disputed position. The group makes it's decision and I declare my intent to appeal. Now that there are two separate lies, I *must* complete the hole using both lies in order to have a score for each lie. (Frankly, I'm not sure I'd have to declare a provisional once I stated I was appealing the decision.)

I'm uncertain about how does the single lie situation differs.

Again, I don't think you are grasping what I'm saying. You CAN'T have already thrown discs "become defacto provisionals". Provisionals MUST be declared before they are thrown or they are not provisionals.

804.06 Provisional Throws

A. Provisional throws are extra throws that are not added to a player's score if they are not ultimately used in the completion of the hole. The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a player's lie and a provisional throw would expedite play, or when the thrower questions a ruling. The unused throws are not to be added to the thrower's score nor treated as practice throws as long as the player announces that such additional throws are provisional throws prior to making them.

See the bolded. You can only disregard unused throws IF you announce the throws are provisional prior to making them. So if you throw from a lie without explicitly announcing the throw is a provisional, it counts (whether as a throw that changes your lie or as a practice throw).

It doesn't matter whether we're talking one lie or two potential lies, any throw that is intended to be a provisional must be announced as such before it's thrown. The rules aren't ambiguous on this point.


Also, announcing you intend to appeal a ruling is not a default announcement for throwing provisionals because provisionals are not required in order to appeal.

 

[JC17393]

Your saying it yourself: That is your interpretation. It's not definitive language that makes it clear. While I might tend to agree with your interpretation, others might not, and as long as it is a question of interpretation, by definition, it is not definitive.

In a more conventional scenraio, you will throw your provisional prior to arriving at the lie of the original throw. Therefor you declare that it is a provisional, so it is not a practice shot. In the case of an appeal, it's not as clear. I wouldn't call both sets provisionals. There is the group consensus, that you must play out, in order to hole out. If you want to appeal, I would call that set of throws provisionals, not both sets.

If it's not a provisional throw (or set of throws), then by definition, it must be counted in the player's score. See my previous post. "Unused" throws can't be disregarded unless they are declared to be provisional before they're thrown. So if the first throw (or set of throws) isn't a provisional, how can it then be disregarded if the TD rules the second set as the correct one?

As for distinguishing "interpretation" from "definitive", isn't everything we do "interpretation" of the rules? It's just that some interpretations are deemed "correct" and some aren't.

 

[jjpitt29]

JC,

Here is the rule for appeals.

When a group cannot reach a decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower. However, any player may seek the ruling of an official, and the official's ruling supersedes the group's ruling. Any player desiring an appeal of the group's decision shall promptly and clearly express that desire to the group.
If an official is readily available, the group shall stand aside to seek the official's ruling, allowing other groups to play through.
If an official is not readily available, the group shall proceed in one of two ways. The group may reach a decision with the benefit of the doubt going to the thrower, and continue play. Alternatively, if the thrower does not wish to continue play under the group's decision, the thrower may declare a provisional per 804.06 B. The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where the thrower questions the group's or an official's ruling.
A player may appeal an official's ruling to the Director. If the Director is readily available, the appeal shall be heard directly. The group shall stand aside awaiting the ruling on appeal. If the Director is not readily available, the group shall continue playing under the official's ruling. The appeal shall be made as soon as is practical. The decision of the Director shall be final.
Where a group's or official's decision is overturned on appeal, the official or Director may, in the interest of fairness, allow the thrower's score to remain the same, or adjust the thrower's score to reflect the correct interpretation of the rules. Only in a case where a replay is the most fair solution, at the discretion of the Director, shall a hole or holes be replayed.

Please explain to me (or get conrad to) how you can read the appeals section and not come to the conclusion that in order to appeal you do not have to throw provisionals. I've read it multiple times, I've tried to see it from your and conrad's point of view. I understand your point of view and I can it making sense in some situations. However, read the rule for appeals. I don't see where you can draw your point of view from this rule.

 

[krupicka]

may != shall

 

[jjpitt29]

may != shall

Yes, keep pointing at that one word. Semantically that may refers to the option to throw provisionals. It does not indicate you can appeal without them.

If there is another option then to play provisionals, why is it not listed and or mentioned anywhere?

 

[krupicka]

Breaking it down. Assuming the first part is true (player does not wish to continue play under group's decision), the player has the option to throw a series of provisionals.

The other point to note here: The disagreement is not where the lie is, but whether or not a penalty is assessed in getting to that lie. All are in agreement where he should throw from.

 

[krupicka]

Yes, keep pointing at that one word. Semantically that may refers to the option to throw provisionals. It does not indicate you can appeal without them.

If there is another option then to play provisionals, why is it not listed and or mentioned anywhere?

Because the other option: do nothing and ask the TD later is the default option.

If a series of provisionals was required then the rule should have been written with a shall not a may.

 

[jjpitt29]

Because the other option: do nothing and ask the TD later is the default option.

If a series of provisionals was required then the rule should have been written with a shall not a may.

You are putting a great deal of meaning and interpretation into the word "may".

The default option is to play by the groups or officials ruling. The other option is to play provisionals and take it to the TD.

I am reading the rule and trying to find your reasoning, but I just can't find it. You are stressing the word "may" and giving it much greater meaning then it should have.

Now I'll agree that maybe they should rewrite so that provisionals are only appropriate to situations where there might be a different lie. And there should be a new option made explicit for situations of a penalty stroke based on the same lie. However I think that should coincide with the admission also of picture/video evidence for such cases.

 

[krupicka]

Having worked with many IEEE standards this is the standard interpretation.

The word shall indicates mandatory requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to the standard and from which no deviation is permitted ( shall equals is required to).

The word may is used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of the standard ( may equals is permitted to)

Any lawyer will give you similar definitions.

If the RC felt it was required, they would have chosen shall instead of may.

 

[JC17393]

You don't have to keep copy/pasting the full text of the rule, especially when your formatting doesn't distinguish the rule from your thoughts. A link and/or an excerpt of the line you want to emphasize is plenty. I'd like to think I've demonstrated that I know what the rule says.

Krupicka is dead on. The key word is may rather than shall. If you don't want to believe that, that's on you, but case after case after case in discussing the vagaries of the rules shows that the use of "shall" vs "should" vs "may" all have different intentions and the rules authors use each with those intentions in mind.

I have passed on the question of when must a provisional be declared (first throw vs second) to Conrad. I will point out that in the previous emails with him (posted here last week), he stated that provisionals are not necessary in appeals in which the lie is the same regardless of the correct ruling (the very question that has been pursued in this thread from the start). Based on that, isn't it reasonable to infer that his view is also that provisionals in general are in fact not an absolute necessity when declaring the intent to appeal a group/official's ruling?

 

[teemkey]

Again, I don't think you are grasping what I'm saying. You CAN'T have already thrown discs "become defacto provisionals". Provisionals MUST be declared before they are thrown or they are not provisionals.

Again, I can't agree since provisionals *usually* are thrown from the tee following a questionable drive. The player doesn't know he/she will throw a provisional until the first drive's status becomes questionable.

Please explain to me (or get conrad to) how you can read the appeals section and not come to the conclusion that in order to appeal you do not have to throw provisionals.

I think this is illustrated in my post #104.

If only one lie results from either ruling (OB/IB), then only one set of throws is required determine the player's score (since the OB penalty is either included or not). I think the rules permit a set of provisionals to establish the alternative score for the hole. Hence, the word "may" applies.

However, if there are different lies resulting from the disputed ruling, then the player must hole out from each lie in order to provide a legitimate alternative score for the hole. I think this case is a "shall" as the player's score for the hole would otherwise be unknown if the TD agrees with the appeal.

 

[teemkey]

PS: The tee box is a lie, according to PDGA rules. Hence, it is a case of a provisional being thrown from the same lie. I don't see anything in the rule book that makes a distinction between a provisional from the tee box vs. a lie on the fairway.

 

[jjpitt29]

You don't have to keep copy/pasting the full text of the rule, especially when your formatting doesn't distinguish the rule from your thoughts. A link and/or an excerpt of the line you want to emphasize is plenty. I'd like to think I've demonstrated that I know what the rule says.

Krupicka is dead on. The key word is may rather than shall. If you don't want to believe that, that's on you, but case after case after case in discussing the vagaries of the rules shows that the use of "shall" vs "should" vs "may" all have different intentions and the rules authors use each with those intentions in mind.

I have passed on the question of when must a provisional be declared (first throw vs second) to Conrad. I will point out that in the previous emails with him (posted here last week), he stated that provisionals are not necessary in appeals in which the lie is the same regardless of the correct ruling (the very question that has been pursued in this thread from the start). Based on that, isn't it reasonable to infer that his view is also that provisionals in general are in fact not an absolute necessity when declaring the intent to appeal a group/official's ruling?

yes it would.

Answer this. Where does it tell me that to appeal, I can just play the scenario once and then appeal whether the penalty is enforced or not?

The only options presented in the rules is to either

1. play by group/officals decision

or

2. a player may take provisionals and then appeal to the TD.

As I said, I read and understand what you and conrad are saying. Just show me in the rules where you get that interpretation. That is the interpretation that you and krup are saying is intended by the use of the word may. So you are saying that one of the ways (or as conrad said) the correct way to play a situation with the same lie is something that is not written out in the rules.

 

[JC17393]

Again, I can't agree since provisionals *usually* are thrown from the tee following a questionable drive. The player doesn't know he/she will throw a provisional until the first drive's status becomes questionable.

PS: The tee box is a lie, according to PDGA rules. Hence, it is a case of a provisional being thrown from the same lie. I don't see anything in the rule book that makes a distinction between a provisional from the tee box vs. a lie on the fairway.

I think we're talking past each other here. A provisional following a drive with a questionable result is not what I am objecting to. And that is solely because the original drive with the questionable result is not in dispute. No matter the outcome of your provisional throw, that original drive COUNTS!

Let's look at it this way...
A is the original drive.
B will be the provisional from the tee box and all subsequent throws stemming from that throw.
C will be the throw played from where the A landed and any subsequent throws stemming from that throw.

If B is provisional, then so is C. But in either case, A is counted. So your score, depending on the ruling is A+B or A+C.

Now your original premise, the one to which I am objecting to, was based on a question regarding a single lie. So let's use the letters again...

A is the original throw and its resulting lie.
B is your first throw from A plus any subsequent throws resulting from it.
C is the second throw from A plus any subsequent throws resulting from it.

The point being to bring the question to the TD and let him decide if the correct score is A+B or A+C. That's fine.

You said you want to throw B, then declare a provisional in order to throw C. That is what I say is in error. If the disagreement is whether B or C is the correct sequence to record, you must announce your intent to throw provisionals before B is thrown if your intent is to potentially replace B with C. To do what you want to do is to declare B a provisional retroactively, which is not allowed by the rules.

 

[krupicka]

Again, I don't think you are grasping what I'm saying. You CAN'T have already thrown discs "become defacto provisionals". Provisionals MUST be declared before they are thrown or they are not provisionals.

Again, I can't agree since provisionals *usually* are thrown from the tee following a questionable drive. The player doesn't know he/she will throw a provisional until the first drive's status becomes questionable.

I believe you are talking about this scenario:
Drive off tee.
"I think that disc may be OB, I will throw a provisional in the case that it is"
Throws provisional shot.

The provisional here is not potentially replacing the first throw (first throw is still counted). Instead it is a sequence of throws until a determination can be made as to the status on whether or not the first throw landed OB.

Essentially the player is saying with the group that we don't know the ruling here. Let's play it out both ways until we can determine the proper ruling. The first way is with the throw from the previous lie if the disc is OB. The other is if the disc is in bounds. Once the location of the first disc has been determined, a proper ruling is made and play continues. The other provisional sequence (throw as if the disc is in bounds), never gets made provisionally because the ruling is made prior to attempting that sequence.