Another provisional question

[JC17393]

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.

Why are you asking me to show you in the rules where the interpretation comes from if you already know? It is the word "may". I know you don't want to buy that, but that is the basis of the interpretation. Period.

"May", "alternatively", "encouraged". Those are the words in the text of the rule. None of which imply requirement. They imply optional at the discretion of the player. Which to me says that if a provisional isn't believed necessary to the overturning of a ruling on appeal, it doesn't need to be thrown. Case in point is the 2-meter question. Another case is clearly when the lie doesn't change based on the outcome of the ruling. If two throws from the exact same lie are not necessary for a TD to rule whether a penalty should be assessed, then the second throw does not need to be made. Please note that I'm not saying it can't be made, I'm only saying it doesn't need to be made.

 

[krupicka]

This horse is really dead. Let's say that you toss your disc back to your bag. A cardmate calls you on a practice throw. You disagree and wish to appeal to the TD. What provisional are you going to throw?

 

[jjpitt29]

Your whole view point is based off of one word "may"...

Sure, I'll agree the horse is dead. You still haven't proven to me with rules that your viewpoint can be validated other then to argue the word may.

The appeals rule says to proceed in one of two ways... neither of which is to just play it once and appeal the penalty.

Courtesy warnings, penalties for turning in your card late, adding score incorrectly, etc... More rules that are out of place that you can quote too Krup.

 

[JC17393]

Your whole view point is based off of one word "may"...

Sure, I'll agree the horse is dead. You still haven't proven to me with rules that your viewpoint can be validated other then to argue the word may.

The appeals rule says to proceed in one of two ways... neither of which is to just play it once and appeal the penalty.

Courtesy warnings, penalties for turning in your card late, adding score incorrectly, etc... More rules that are out of place that you can quote too Krup.

You make yourself difficult to convince if you refuse to accept the only basis on which the argument is founded. You don't want to buy that the intent of the word "may" is what it is says you don't want to be convinced, IMO.

Whatever. The horse is dead. Long live the horse.

 

[jjpitt29]

Just for you JC I only copied a small part of it.

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.

You are basing your view that the word MAY gives you the option to not throw provisionals if the lie is the same. Just play it out once and then appeal the penalty to the TD.

My argument is that the word MAY is being used to distinguish between 1 of 2 options the rules provide. I'm basing my view point directly from the wording in the rules. You are basing your view point off something else. I want you to show me either how I am wrong or where you are getting your view point from. I'm sure you think you have, but I don't. I know you got conrad to agree with you. Great, I'm proud of you. However the folks I talked to who I greatly respect for a number of reasons don't see it that way.

Show me in the rules where you can just appeal the penalty without using provisional throws and we can shoot the horse for good. If you can then we might just have a zombie horse on our hands.

 

[JC17393]

Just for you JC I only copied a small part of it.

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.

You are basing your view that the word MAY gives you the option to not throw provisionals if the lie is the same. Just play it out once and then appeal the penalty to the TD.

My argument is that the word MAY is being used to distinguish between 1 of 2 options the rules provide. I'm basing my view point directly from the wording in the rules. You are basing your view point off something else. I want you to show me either how I am wrong or where you are getting your view point from. I'm sure you think you have, but I don't. I know you got conrad to agree with you. Great, I'm proud of you. However the folks I talked to who I greatly respect for a number of reasons don't see it that way.

Show me in the rules where you can just appeal the penalty without using provisional throws and we can shoot the horse for good. If you can then we might just have a zombie horse on our hands.

I didn't "get" Conrad to agree with me. Don't make it sound like he can't think for himself, that's insulting. He's the head of the rules committee. He had a big hand in the wording of the rules as they are currently written. Therefore I think his interpretation of the intent of the rule carries a hell of a lot more weight than a random polling of people you "greatly respect".

 

[jjpitt29]

Why so testy? I apologize if my sarcasm was a bit too syrupy... Don't get me wrong, I understand who conrad is and all of that. I appreciate his input on this. This is another great situation of intent of a rule and the wording maybe not syncing up.

Just back up that view point with something from the rules. I quoted (like you asked, only a small section) where the wording is very clear on your options. Where is the wording for your option you are defending?

 

[JC17393]

Why so testy? I apologize if my sarcasm was a bit too syrupy... Don't get me wrong, I understand who conrad is and all of that. I appreciate his input on this. This is another great situation of intent of a rule and the wording maybe not syncing up.

Just back up that view point with something from the rules. I quoted (like you asked, only a small section) where the wording is very clear on your options. Where is the wording for your option you are defending?

For the 18th time, it's the word "may". Period. That's it. Why am I supposed to pursue some alternate evidence when that's it? You don't buy it. Fine. Horse is ****ing dead already.

 

[jjpitt29]

What about the line before that, that says in ONE of TWO ways?

 

[teemkey]

Thanks JC. What I didn't gt was the "'A' counts." That is a clear & simple explanation I can grasp to understand your rationale. I agree that the tee box provisional declaration is different than the fairway provisional declaration in my example of identical lies.

However (you knew that was coming, right? ) I want to return to the definition of "provisional," as I have come to the conclusion that only one set of throws can be provisional.

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.

(I know this is a repetition, but ...)

To follow the rules of an appeal, I must immediately object to the group ruling and declare that I will appeal. But I have to honor the group decision and hole out based on an OB ruling. No choice, it's required. I do not think the declaration of a provisional is required. And, until the appeal can be presented to the TD, this set of throws is my score and not provisional.

It states in 805.01 (C) "If the thrower does not wish to play under the group's decision, the thrower may declare a provisional ..." and in 804.06 (C)(2) "A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole as part of an appeal..."

The second set is the one taken to provide a score if the appeal is successful. So it is the provisional set.

It is the TD who decides which set is not counted. If the appeal is successful, then the set honoring the group decision is not counted and after the fact becomes the provisional set. The point being that only one set is provisional at any point in time.

 

[teemkey]

Which to me says that if a provisional isn't believed necessary to the overturning of a ruling on appeal, it doesn't need to be thrown. Case in point is the 2-meter question. Another case is clearly when the lie doesn't change based on the outcome of the ruling. If two throws from the exact same lie are not necessary for a TD to rule whether a penalty should be assessed, then the second throw does not need to be made. Please note that I'm not saying it can't be made, I'm only saying it doesn't need to be made.

I would fully support the RC stipulating that provisionals aren't permitted in the case where both the group/official decision and the appeal result in a single lie. I do not think it is fair, and have been playing devil's advocate for illustrative purposes.

 

[WhiteyBear]

I would fully support the RC stipulating that provisionals aren't permitted in the case where both the group/official decision and the appeal result in a single lie. I do not think it is fair, and have been playing devil's advocate for illustrative purposes.

Just to expound upon that...again....if a disc is ruled out by the group (and didn't cross the OB prior during a drive, so assume it was a direct roll and stop on the on line), but the player wants to appeal, you don't need a provisional.

For a specific example, if the disc is laying OB, but touching the OB line, and the player is "sure" that it means his disc is IB, he would get a meter in anyways from the line according to the rules. You do NOT need to throw a second shot. If it is found out, upon appeal, that the line was in, you just keep the score from the card, if you find out that it was OB, you add a stroke. You don't need to throw a provisional, just write it down on the card that you are appealing the ruling and have the group go with you to discuss the situation.

In that particular case, throwing a "regular" shot and a provisional is not only not needed, but I believe unwarranted.

If the overall LIE does not need to change, and its just a matter of is the score needs to be added correctly, just throw the shot where it lies.

 

[teemkey]

Just to expound upon that...again....if a disc is ruled out by the group (and didn't cross the OB prior during a drive, so assume it was a direct roll and stop on the on line), but the player wants to appeal, you don't need a provisional.

For a specific example, if the disc is laying OB, but touching the OB line, and the player is "sure" that it means his disc is IB, he would get a meter in anyways from the line according to the rules. You do NOT need to throw a second shot. If it is found out, upon appeal, that the line was in, you just keep the score from the card, if you find out that it was OB, you add a stroke. You don't need to throw a provisional, just write it down on the card that you are appealing the ruling and have the group go with you to discuss the situation.

In that particular case, throwing a "regular" shot and a provisional is not only not needed, but I believe unwarranted.

If the overall LIE does not need to change, and its just a matter of is the score needs to be added correctly, just throw the shot where it lies.

True. The problem is if the player decides to throw a provisional, interpretation of the rules becomes confusing (see above). As you say, it is unnecessary, slows play, and, under certain conditions, may be unfair as well.

 

[JC17393]

Conrad responded to my latest request for clarity. I'm sure jjpitts will be surprised to find that he does not concur 100% with my interpretations. In those cases, I will admit "defeat" and defer to his interpretation.

What I sent to him this morning...

Hi Conrad,

Sorry to bug you again, but the provisional debates rage on.

This time, the debate is over when a provisional must be declared. One person is arguing that he can make a throw from a lie determined by group/official ruling and then announce his intent to throw a provisional from the lie he believes to be the correct one. My view is that he cannot do that because it would be retroactively calling the first throw a provisional, which isn't allowed per 804.06A. My understanding of that rule is that before ANY throw from either lie (or the same lie if that's the case) is attempted, the intent to make provisional throws must be announced. And any throw that is not announced as a provisional ahead of time can not be counted as such after the fact.

Also, there is a disagreement of semantics with regard to what is/isn't considered a provisional. If two sets of throws are played out in a provisional situation, are they both considered provisional? Or is the set of throws pursuant to the group/official's ruling just a set of throws while only the alternate set is considered "provisional"?

My take is that they're all technically provisional throws since 804.06A explicitly says that in order for unused throws to be disregarded (rather than counted as regular throws or practice throws), they must be announced as provisionals. If one set of throws isn't "provisional" then can it be disregarded once a ruling is made? This disagreement is potentially the crux of the first question, I think.

Thanks for your consideration.

Conrad's thoughtful response:

804.06 is one of the rules where it's easy to find holes if you poke at it hard enough (misplay is another). The use of provisionals requires some measure of common sense. As the rule states, there are two main situations where you'd use a provisional. The first is to save time, for example, a drive on a long downhill hole that might not be found. It makes sense to throw a second, since in the case of a lost disc the player would have to return to the tee. The provisional may save him that long round trip. Note that it requires majority consent.

The second situation is a disputed ruling. An oversight in 804.06.B.2 is that it doesn't mention declaring the provisional. The intent is that any provisional should be declared so that it's clear to the group that it's not a practice throw. (As an aside, a player could abuse the rule by disputing every ruling in order to use provisionals as practice shots, but that would be covered by the "intentionally circumventing the rules" escape clause. Plus, his group would hate him.)

I don't consider the original sequence of throws to be a provisional, despite the fact that they may not be counted. That's a narrower interpretation of the word "provisional", which I understand to apply only to the additional throws that would not normally have been made.

Though the rule isn't clear about it, the intent to throw a provisional should be declared before a subsequent throw is made from the original lie in a disputed ruling. Otherwise, the provisional rule is open to abuse by someone who shanks their approach shot and then disputes the lie hoping for a second chance (though they still have to convince the TD that the original lie was incorrect).

So the conclusion seems to be that he agrees that the intent to throw a provisional should be declared before any throw is attempted from the original lie in a disputed ruling. However, my reasoning that this is the case because both sets of throws are technically provisional is not correct.

 

[jjpitt29]

lol, thanks for the thoughts JC. Please don't be so testy. I just like to debate. I try very hard to not to demean people etc.

As long as you are talking with him, ask him about Part C on appeals. I know you think this is a dead horse, but I don't. I don't see where you can appeal without throwing provisionals they way I read it. Part C gives you two options.

I know he said playing from the same lie you should only have to do it once, etc. Ask him if he thinks the appeals rule should be worded differently to make that more clear.

 

[jjpitt29]

Should probably start a new thread, but I thought I would throw these out to ya guys.

1. With all of our "discussions" on here, do you think there is a need for more rules school video's and lessons to be put out. (approved by the RC hopefully, no matter who is doing them).
-especially considering the amount of new players and new tournament players there are?


2. Do you think there should be a tougher "test" to pass to play in tournaments, or atleast in the bigger A tiers and NT's?

I had another one, but lost it...

 

[JC17393]

lol, thanks for the thoughts JC. Please don't be so testy. I just like to debate. I try very hard to not to demean people etc.

As long as you are talking with him, ask him about Part C on appeals. I know you think this is a dead horse, but I don't. I don't see where you can appeal without throwing provisionals they way I read it. Part C gives you two options.

I know he said playing from the same lie you should only have to do it once, etc. Ask him if he thinks the appeals rule should be worded differently to make that more clear.

I feel it's asked and answered, so I don't really want to continue to pursuit it further. But it's not like I have exclusive access to Conrad and the Rules Committee.

Contact the Rules Committee

It's via that link (and ones like it in past incarnations of the PDGA website) that the majority of the Q&A section of the rule book is derived. The more people who use the link to seek clarifications and interpretations, the more likely that a future edition of the rule book will address any apparent shortcomings.

 

[JoakimBL]

He's the head of the rules committee. He had a big hand in the wording of the rules as they are currently written.

I wouldn't brag about that if I were him. There are so many problems with the current rulebook that they really should have been rushing to fix it.

 

[teemkey]

Should probably start a new thread, but I thought I would throw these out to ya guys.

1. With all of our "discussions" on here, do you think there is a need for more rules school video's and lessons to be put out. (approved by the RC hopefully, no matter who is doing them).
-especially considering the amount of new players and new tournament players there are?


2. Do you think there should be a tougher "test" to pass to play in tournaments, or atleast in the bigger A tiers and NT's?

I had another one, but lost it...

(1) yes. Videos are increasingly used for various sorts of instruction & tutorials, coupled with the ease of access to video. The PDGA certainly should take advantage of the medium.

(2) I support a more rigorous test for TDs, Marshals, and anyone designated as an official during tournament play. The current open book test is adequate for players; however, the person adjudicating a player's appeal should be better versed in the rules than the average player.

 

[JC17393]

(1) yes. Videos are increasingly used for various sorts of instruction & tutorials, coupled with the ease of access to video. The PDGA certainly should take advantage of the medium.

(2) I support a more rigorous test for TDs, Marshals, and anyone designated as an official during tournament play. The current open book test is adequate for players; however, the person adjudicating a player's appeal should be better versed in the rules than the average player.

Agreed on both. Tutorials of any kind would be great. What tutorials exist on the PDGA site (both in article and video form) were created by third parties, however. What that says to me is that a well written tutorial or a well produced and detailed video regarding any given rule could be produced by any member and submitted to the PDGA for publication. It doesn't have to be an "insider" or a member of the rules committee that does this. Given that they're all volunteers anyway, it makes sense that such a task shouldn't be foisted on their shoulders alone.

As for the test, I've long advocated for a more vigorous test than what we have now, for both players and officials (TDs, marshalls, etc). TDs for obvious reasons...according to the rule book, they're the final authority at their event. They have to know the rules correctly or problems will (and do) result. But I think players need to be tested better as well.

Players that are required to pass the test are the ones playing the biggest events in our sport (NTs and Majors). If we're going to have high expectations of each player's rules knowledge at any events, those are the ones to have them for. Players playing in an NT or Major event should know when and how to properly take casual relief without an explanation from a TD/marshall/official/groupmate. They should know what line of play is and how it is determined/utilized. They should know that they have up to three options of where to throw after they go OB. But there are players who have passed the test that don't know some of these things (or at least they fail in applying them properly on the course even if they do "know").

It's probably a pipedream, but to me, it would be another small step toward "legitimizing" the sport.