Correct lie and misplays

[Rastnav]

Taken from discussion of Haley's misplay on 18 at Mulligans, and whether or not it could be assessed as a retroactive misplay:

A bad lie still needs needs to be confirmed by a second player or tournament official who saw it (without the use of video), per 801.02.E. So I guess in that case you should contact the rest of the group to see if any of them could confirm it?

This brings up a, perhaps only half-interesting, thought.

Suppose Paige believed at the time she missed that mando, but no one else on the card would/could confirm it. She then plays from the drop zone. Has she misplayed? Yes, I realize the idea that someone would actually call this is so remote as to be ridiculous, but the principle is what I'm getting at, as the principle is what governs how the question is approached in the first place.

This is, I think, somewhat similar to the discussion of lost discs that may be in the OB. What's the standard of evidence for declaring a made or missed mando? What is the presumption? Do the rules even officially contemplate that a mandatory may not be viewable off the tee? Hat about that approach shot triple mando at the fort, what if your disc ended up left of that, but off the tee?

And, as a way to illustrate why the principle matters, suppose there was deep rough on that hole and Paige managed to go deep into it, such that it might be advantageous to play from the drop zone rather than the lie? (At The Fort there was at least one hole where going far enough left to go into OB was actually better than coming up somewhere on the same line, but not going into OB.) Does the player have the right to unilaterally call the penalty on themselves? Or does it need to be confirmed?

 

[SumnerH]

Suppose Paige believed at the time she missed that mando, but no one else on the card would/could confirm it. She then plays from the drop zone. Has she misplayed? Yes, I realize the idea that someone would actually call this is so remote as to be ridiculous, but the principle is what I'm getting at, as the principle is what governs how the question is approached in the first place.

That's how I'd read it:

A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official. A penalty throw is a throw added to a player's score for violating a rule, or for relocation of the lie as called for by a rule.

The missed mando call made by any player can't be enforced without a second. There's no exception for calling a rule on yourself.

Without that call being enforced, the proper lie is where her disc landed. Playing from the drop zone would be a misplay for playing from the wrong lie.

 

[BillFleming]

In my understanding.....there are two options for calls.
1. A player calls a penalty on player B. That call MUST be seconded or it doesn't count.
Example, a card mate calls Paige on missing the mando. Another player has to second it.
2. A player calls a penalty on themself. No one needs to second it.
Example, Paige called the missed mando on herself.

Example 1, the call needs to be seconded as it is a cardmate who COULD be calling the penalty to intentionally affect the other player's score.
Example 2, why would a player call a penalty on themselves if it wasn't? They could ask the group if it was a penalty - then leave it up to group decision.

I believe the rules don't explicitly state anything about a player calling a penalty on themselves, because the player is the one affected by it....so why need any other confirmation/agreement?

 

[SumnerH]

In my understanding.....there are two options for calls.
1. A player calls a penalty on player B. That call MUST be seconded or it doesn't count.
Example, a card mate calls Paige on missing the mando. Another player has to second it.
2. A player calls a penalty on themself. No one needs to second it.
Example, Paige called the missed mando on herself.

Example 1, the call needs to be seconded as it is a cardmate who COULD be calling the penalty to intentionally affect the other player's score.
Example 2, why would a player call a penalty on themselves if it wasn't? They could ask the group if it was a penalty - then leave it up to group decision.

I believe the rules don't explicitly state anything about a player calling a penalty on themselves, because the player is the one affected by it....so why need any other confirmation/agreement?

But it's not a case where the rules are silent on the issue: they do explicitly say that any call by a player must be seconded by another player or tournament official. The person making the shot is a player, and so a second is needed.

The last paragraph of Rastnav's first post in the thread does a very good job of addressing your Example 2 by providing hypothetical scenarios where calling a penalty on yourself would be to your benefit.

The rule requiring seconding prevents a player from exploiting those cases unfairly.

 

[BillFleming]

And, as a way to illustrate why the principle matters, suppose there was deep rough on that hole and Paige managed to go deep into it, such that it might be advantageous to play from the drop zone rather than the lie? (At The Fort there was at least one hole where going far enough left to go into OB was actually better than coming up somewhere on the same line, but not going into OB.) Does the player have the right to unilaterally call the penalty on themselves? Or does it need to be confirmed?

I don't think a player needs a penalty confirmed when they call it on themselves. But maybe it needs worded better in the rules. Personally, I don't know of anyone who would overrule a player that called a penalty on themselves in a tournament.

Using your OB at the Fort example...
Two players throw their tee shot on the same line, one goes OB and one doesn't.
The OB one has to take a penalty and throw from inbounds or a drop zone.
OB player is now throwing 3 and the inbound one is throwing 2.
Where is the advantage?

I'm sure somewhere there is that overlooked 'drop zone/whatever' that might give a player an advantage....but is it worth the stroke penalty?

 

[autocrosscrx]

Using your OB at the Fort example...
Two players throw their tee shot on the same line, one goes OB and one doesn't.
The OB one has to take a penalty and throw from inbounds or a drop zone.
OB player is now throwing 3 and the inbound one is throwing 2.
Where is the advantage?

I think the assumption in that example is that OB throwing 3 player has a clean look, whereas inbound but in jail player might not be able to pitch out to a spot where they have a clear 3rd shot.

 

[jakebake91]

I don't think a player needs a penalty confirmed when they call it on themselves. But maybe it needs worded better in the rules. Personally, I don't know of anyone who would overrule a player that called a penalty on themselves in a tournament.

Using your OB at the Fort example...
Two players throw their tee shot on the same line, one goes OB and one doesn't.
The OB one has to take a penalty and throw from inbounds or a drop zone.
OB player is now throwing 3 and the inbound one is throwing 2.
Where is the advantage?

I'm sure somewhere there is that overlooked 'drop zone/whatever' that might give a player an advantage....but is it worth the stroke penalty?

I remember watching a video a while ago at a small tourney where someone tried to call a putting violation on themselves (falling putt?). I want to say it was Patrick Brown. The card all claimed they didn't see it/couldn't/wouldn't enforce it. He almost was arguing with them about it. In the end, no penalty.

I wanna say JohnE McCray was on the card......maybe one of the tourneys in Duluth/Superior area? I'll dig.

 

[Rastnav]

I don't think a player needs a penalty confirmed when they call it on themselves. But maybe it needs worded better in the rules. Personally, I don't know of anyone who would overrule a player that called a penalty on themselves in a tournament.

Using your OB at the Fort example...
Two players throw their tee shot on the same line, one goes OB and one doesn't.
The OB one has to take a penalty and throw from inbounds or a drop zone.
OB player is now throwing 3 and the inbound one is throwing 2.
Where is the advantage?

I'm sure somewhere there is that overlooked 'drop zone/whatever' that might give a player an advantage....but is it worth the stroke penalty?

As was already stated, one of the holes on the Fort, I think one of the very technical par 4s on the front 9, had a drop zone for OB that gave an opportunity to save par with a very good shot.

On that hole if you you went early left, it was very hard to get back to the fairway with a look at the green. Actually getting to the drop zone lying two was a very good outcome. If you went even further left, there happened to be some OB that wasn't really designed to be in play for that hole. So going far enough off line to get to the OB was actually better than going left but short of the OB.

Nate Sexton, when doing commentary on JomezPro for the second round, mentioned how generous that drop zone was, as he had gone OB to the left and felt that it had actually helped him on that hole. And, I think in round 4, I believe Calvin ended up left, but not OB, and Sexton again mentioned that OB would have been better.

In short, lying a guaranteed 2 with a shot to the basket is way better than lying 1 having to execute a really good shot to get the same outcome guaranteed to the OB lie.

 

[ToddL]

To add another layer to this debate, note that there's a difference between a violation (call and confirm) and a group determination (vote).

Violations are stance violations, marking violations, courtesy, excessive time, etc. If a player chooses to call himself on one of these violations, is there any reason it needs to be confirmed?

Group determinations are things like OB, missed mandos, etc. All players vote, most votes wins. Even if you think the drop zone is advantageous, you still need the group to vote if you're in or out. It's probably best to not allow unilateral action on these items.

I remember watching a video a while ago at a small tourney where someone tried to call a putting violation on themselves (falling putt?). I want to say it was Patrick Brown. The card all claimed they didn't see it/couldn't/wouldn't enforce it. He almost was arguing with them about it. In the end, no penalty.

I wanna say JohnE McCray was on the card......maybe one of the tourneys in Duluth/Superior area? I'll dig.

2019 Idlewild, hole 3, I think.

 

[Rastnav]

To add another layer to this debate, note that there's a difference between a violation (call and confirm) and a group determination (vote).

Violations are stance violations, marking violations, courtesy, excessive time, etc. If a player chooses to call himself on one of these violations, is there any reason it needs to be confirmed?

Group determinations are things like OB, missed mandos, etc. All players vote, most votes wins. Even if you think the drop zone is advantageous, you still need the group to vote if you're in or out. It's probably best to not allow unilateral action on these items.



2019 Idlewild, hole 3, I think.

So, it's actually 3 total players that need to confirm a missed mando, correct? If the vote is tied, the penalty is not called, as by rule the penalty has to win the vote to be assessed?

 

[SumnerH]

So, it's actually 3 total players that need to confirm a missed mando, correct? If the vote is tied, the penalty is not called, as by rule the penalty has to win the vote to be assessed?

No. Nothing in the rules says anything about "needing a majority" or "winning a vote".

The rules say that a call on a rule that has a penalty stroke needs to be confirmed by another player. Call and seconded, and it's done:

A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official

The full rules on enforcement are here: https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/80102

 

[ToddL]

No. Nothing in the rules says anything about "needing a majority" or "winning a vote".

The rules say that a call on a rule that has a penalty stroke needs to be confirmed by another player. Call and seconded, and it's done:

801.02.A: Any determination made by the group as a whole is to be made by a majority of the group.
801.02.C: A player in the group may call or confirm a rules violation on any player in the group by notifying all players in the group.

Determinations are decided by vote. Violations are decided by call and confirmation.

Rules that are violations (use the call and confirmation process):
802.03 Excessive Time: A player who takes excessive time receives a warning for the first violation.
802.06 Marking the Lie: Marking the lie in a manner other than described above is a marking violation.
802.07 Stance: A player who violates 802.07.A or 802.07.B has committed a stance violation and receives one penalty throw.
806.01 Putting Area: A player who fails to do so has committed a stance violation and receives one penalty throw.
812 Courtesy: A player receives a warning for the first violation of any courtesy rule.

Rules that are determinations (use the group vote method):
805.02 Disc Above Two Meters: If the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc is considered to have come to rest above two meters.
806.02 Out-of-Bounds: If the thrower moves the disc before a determination regarding its out-of-bounds status has been made, the disc is considered to be out-of-bounds.
806.05 Hazard: If the thrower moves the disc before a determination whether it is in a hazard has been made, the disc is considered to be in the hazard.

 

[ToddL]

So, it's actually 3 total players that need to confirm a missed mando, correct? If the vote is tied, the penalty is not called, as by rule the penalty has to win the vote to be assessed?

Pretty much the same thing as deciding whether a disc is IB or OB. Sit around and debate it for a minute, then make a group determination.

 

[Rastnav]

801.02.A: Any determination made by the group as a whole is to be made by a majority of the group.
801.02.C: A player in the group may call or confirm a rules violation on any player in the group by notifying all players in the group.

Determinations are decided by vote. Violations are decided by call and confirmation.

Rules that are violations (use the call and confirmation process):
802.03 Excessive Time: A player who takes excessive time receives a warning for the first violation.
802.06 Marking the Lie: Marking the lie in a manner other than described above is a marking violation.
802.07 Stance: A player who violates 802.07.A or 802.07.B has committed a stance violation and receives one penalty throw.
806.01 Putting Area: A player who fails to do so has committed a stance violation and receives one penalty throw.
812 Courtesy: A player receives a warning for the first violation of any courtesy rule.

Rules that are determinations (use the group vote method):
805.02 Disc Above Two Meters: If the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc is considered to have come to rest above two meters.
806.02 Out-of-Bounds: If the thrower moves the disc before a determination regarding its out-of-bounds status has been made, the disc is considered to be out-of-bounds.
806.05 Hazard: If the thrower moves the disc before a determination whether it is in a hazard has been made, the disc is considered to be in the hazard.

I note that rule 804 and its subsections don't specify that missing a mandatory is a determination, but it makes sense that it would be, given the other things that are determinations. It's obviously going to be even less clear than 2-meters, OB and Hazard lies, so you would think it would be a determination.

Although, it's also dynamic (like, say, a foot fault). But so is where your disc crossed the OB line, and that's also a determination.

To be more clear, 804.02 C could be reworded:

C. A player who makes a throw that has been determined to have missed a mandatory receives one penalty throw.

 

[BillFleming]

So, it's actually 3 total players that need to confirm a missed mando, correct? If the vote is tied, the penalty is not called, as by rule the penalty has to win the vote to be assessed?

No. It's the majority of the card. If the card is only three players, then the majority would be two. Four, yes, three would be the majority with any tie going in the player's favor.

I'm not quite sure how it would work if a player said they didn't see it and can't make a decision. In a foursome, would only the three that actually saw it (including the player themself) matter? I would think so....basically, go with the majority that saw the event happen.

 

[Rastnav]

Fair point about cards with fewer than 4 players (or more than 4, I suppose).

No. It's the majority of the card. If the card is only three players, then the majority would be two. Four, yes, three would be the majority with any tie going in the player's favor.

I'm not quite sure how it would work if a player said they didn't see it and can't make a decision. In a foursome, would only the three that actually saw it (including the player themself) matter? I would think so....basically, go with the majority that saw the event happen.

Whether or not that's how it "should be", that's not how the rules define a group. The group is all the players on the card:

801.02 Enforcement
A. Players are assigned to play holes together in a group for the purpose
of verifying scores and ensuring play in accordance with the rules.
Any determination made by the group as a whole is to be made by a
majority of the group.

 

[araytx]

Taken from discussion of Haley's misplay on 18 at Mulligans, and whether or not it could be assessed as a retroactive misplay:


This brings up a, perhaps only half-interesting, thought.

Suppose Paige believed at the time she missed that mando, but no one else on the card would/could confirm it. She then plays from the drop zone. Has she misplayed? Yes, I realize the idea that someone would actually call this is so remote as to be ridiculous, but the principle is what I'm getting at, as the principle is what governs how the question is approached in the first place.

This is, I think, somewhat similar to the discussion of lost discs that may be in the OB. What's the standard of evidence for declaring a made or missed mando? What is the presumption? Do the rules even officially contemplate that a mandatory may not be viewable off the tee? Hat about that approach shot triple mando at the fort, what if your disc ended up left of that, but off the tee?

And, as a way to illustrate why the principle matters, suppose there was deep rough on that hole and Paige managed to go deep into it, such that it might be advantageous to play from the drop zone rather than the lie? (At The Fort there was at least one hole where going far enough left to go into OB was actually better than coming up somewhere on the same line, but not going into OB.) Does the player have the right to unilaterally call the penalty on themselves? Or does it need to be confirmed?

But it's not a case where the rules are silent on the issue: they do explicitly say that any call by a player must be seconded by another player or tournament official. The person making the shot is a player, and so a second is needed.

The last paragraph of Rastnav's first post in the thread does a very good job of addressing your Example 2 by providing hypothetical scenarios where calling a penalty on yourself would be to your benefit.

The rule requiring seconding prevents a player from exploiting those cases unfairly.

No. Nothing in the rules says anything about "needing a majority" or "winning a vote".

The rules say that a call on a rule that has a penalty stroke needs to be confirmed by another player. Call and seconded, and it's done:



The full rules on enforcement are here: https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/80102

Definitions, definitions, definitions. The key to most rules books in any sport is the definitions. This entire thread was created without clearly understanding those.

My entire summary of the Hailey King situation and the question raised in this and the other thread:

801.02 C Enforcement (bold italics are my emphasis):
A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official. That is correct and absolutely true for rules violations.

Rules violations, as correctly stated in ToddL's earlier post are things like stance violations, marking violations, courtesy violations, excessive time violations. Throwing out-of-bounds or through a prohibited route (aka "missing a mando" as in rule 804.02) are not rule "violations."
Those are simply determinations regarding the disc's position or flight – determinations (under the rules) as ToodL said. A missed mando determination does not need a confirmation, nor does an OB determination, if the thrower says his her disc is OB or missed mando/etc. See the "shenanigans" exception below. We're talking abut normal play here.)

What Hailey committed (if all details are accurate herein and if the officials are notified after the round.) is a misplay under 811.F.1 & 811.A, and can be penalized under 811.C.

As far as the people saying that in certain situations at The Fort a player could, in theory, without confirmation intentionally call their throw OB in order to get the more generous drop zone rather than be buried in the shule, I refer you to 811.E. – they are subject to DQ.

Sumner – the rules ARE NOT silent – IF one knows the difference in the definitions of "rules violation" and "determination".

 

[SumnerH]

Those are simply determinations regarding the disc's position or flight – determinations (under the rules) as ToodL said. A missed mando determination does not need a confirmation, nor does an OB determination, if the thrower says his her disc is OB or missed mando/etc.

You're misreading this section, IMO: the rules say that any determination must be made by the group, but that any rules violation that involves a penalty stroke must be confirmed. Since a missed mando involves a penalty stroke, the latter applies. Nowhere else in the rules distinguishes "determinations" from "violations" in any manner other than whether or not a stroke penalty applies.

But even if you grant that it is a determination, it needs to be backed up by the group (not a solo call): "Any determination made by the group as a whole is to be made by a majority of the group."

 

[araytx]

You're misreading this section, IMO: the rules say that any determination must be made by the group, but that any rules violation that involves a penalty stroke must be confirmed. Since a missed mando involves a penalty stroke, the latter applies. Nowhere else in the rules distinguishes "determinations" from "violations" in any manner other than whether or not a stroke penalty applies.

But even if you grant that it is a determination, it needs to be backed up by the group (not a solo call): "Any determination made by the group as a whole is to be made by a majority of the group."

So you're gonna tell me that I cannot say my OBVIOUSLY OB disc is out-of-bounds and play it without a group confirmation? Seriously? You're hanging your hat on that?? uh, NO way. I am 100% certain that the confirmation by another member of the group applies solely to violations -- courtesy, excessive time, stance, and marking. If those violations are called, they must be seconded in a circumstance where there is an accompanying a penalty throw assessment. Throwing out-of-bounds or throwing "wrong side" of a mando isn't a violation -- not by definition under the current rule book.

Here's a link for all you guys who seem to KNOW what the rules mean. Try it. I'm not misreading anything. I've contacted the RC from time to time and have a pretty good idea what is meant here.

https://www.pdga.com/contact/committees/rules-committee

 

[SumnerH]

So you're gonna tell me that I cannot say my OBVIOUSLY OB disc is out-of-bounds and play it without a group confirmation? Seriously? You're hanging your hat on that??

In practice the group isn't going to object to something obvious like that. But if the rest of the group did object to your call, then yeah, you can't call it unilaterally.

We're arguing in circles now, unless you can actually point out where in the rules it actually defines a violation as anything other than things that cause a stroke penalty. So I'll bow out from further discussion.