Directional aid penalty

[robdeforge]

Is it one throw for a rules violation for violating 813.02.B, or is it two penalty throws for using an illegal device as in 813.02.E?

https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/81302

813.02 Illegal Device
Last updated: Friday, December 31, 2021 - 20:40
A. A player must not use any device that directly assists in making a throw.
B. Placing an object as a directional aid is not allowed.
...
E. A player receives two penalty throws if observed at any time during a round to be using an illegal device. A player who repeatedly uses an illegal device may be subject to disqualification in accordance with Section 3.03 of the PDGA Competition Manual.

 

[Countchunkula]

Or is it three throws if the object used as a directional aide was an illegal device?

 

[flatflip]

Or is it three throws if the object used as a directional aide was an illegal device?

If you're going use your bong to flag the fairway in states where cannabis is illegal, I recommend calling it a "tobacco water pipe."

 

[biscoe]

My belief has always been that "directly assists" means "physically assists." Note that they call one a "device" and the other an "object"- while a device and an object could be the same thing I believe the use of 2 different terms in such close proximity lends towards the interpretation that they are not.

 

[BillFleming]

Is it one throw for a rules violation for violating 813.02.B, or is it two penalty throws for using an illegal device as in 813.02.E?

https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/81302

By your quote, it would be a two throw penalty. Placing an object as a directional aid makes it an illegal device under 813.02. The penalty for violating 813.02 is in para E. and a two throw penalty.


Doesn't matter if other rules are also violated, you can only receive one rules penalty per throw. And the greater penalty always takes precedence.

 

[robdeforge]

Placing an object as a directional aid makes it an illegal device

Where do the rules state this?

 

[biscoe]

Where do the rules state this?

I don't believe the rules support it either (object doesn't equal device- devices are objects but all objects are not devices- if they meant for the 2 to be the same why use a different term?) but it does appear Fajkus was penalized 2 strokes for it at Ledgestone a couple years back.

 

[Steve West]

Using a device to directly assist a throw is what makes the device illegal.

You can carry a disc-retrieving stick, but if you extend it and hook your disc on the end and fling the disc with it, it is an illegal device you used for that throw.

Part B. just makes clear that placing an object as a directional aid is to be considered the same as directly assisting a throw. That could be worded better, but it's two penalty throws.

 

[robdeforge]

I don't believe the rules support it either (object doesn't equal device- devices are objects but all objects are not devices- if they meant for the 2 to be the same why use a different term?) but it does appear Fajkus was penalized 2 strokes for it at Ledgestone a couple years back.

thank you for reminding me of the person/tournament this happened in - more details at https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2020...yken-out-front-early-field-within-one-stroke/ for anybody interested

Using a device to directly assist a throw is what makes the device illegal.

You can carry a disc-retrieving stick, but if you extend it and hook your disc on the end and fling the disc with it, it is an illegal device you used for that throw.

Part B. just makes clear that placing an object as a directional aid is to be considered the same as directly assisting a throw. That could be worded better, but it's two penalty throws.

I agree this is probably what the rules are supposed to mean, especially because "Placing an object as a directional aid is not allowed." is found in the "Illegal Device" section.

But it seems biscoe and I are on the same page... It doesn't say "Placing an object as a directional aid is an example of using an illegal device" or "Placing an object as a directional is not allowed. Players that use an object as a directional aid are subject to penalties in 813.02.E". But just saying "it is not allowed" makes me think that the penalty would be the same as for violating other rules, which is one penalty throw

 

[BillFleming]

Where do the rules state this?

813.02 Illegal Device Para B.

Placing an object as a directional aid is not allowed.

So, placing an object as a directional aid is not allowed.

Therefore, an object may not be an illegal device, but during the time it is used as a directional aid it becomes an illegal device under 813.02.B Illegal Device.

 

[robdeforge]

Therefore, an object may not be an illegal device, but during the time it is used as a directional aid it becomes an illegal device under 813.02.B Illegal Device.

That makes sense, but the rules don't say that an object that is being used as a directional aid becomes an illegal device - the rules say it's not allowed, which to me is an important distinction.

I will accept that it should be a 2 throw penalty but feel that this could use some clarification to make it clearer.

 

[BillFleming]

That makes sense, but the rules don't say that an object that is being used as a directional aid becomes an illegal device - the rules say it's not allowed, which to me is an important distinction.

I will accept that it should be a 2 throw penalty but feel that this could use some clarification to make it clearer.

It's more of an inference that it is an illegal device, without stating so, since that entry is under the Illegal Device rule.

Some rules should be clarified and maybe this is one of them.....but I hope we don't have to get so 'clarified/detailed' that the rules book becomes as huge and full of 'legalese' as the ball golf rule book.

 

[seedlings]

What if your mini has an arrow dyed on top? What if it's just a logo on top, but you aim the logo down the fairway?

 

[BillFleming]

What if your mini has an arrow dyed on top? What if it's just a logo on top, but you aim the logo down the fairway?

I would say that you aren't "placing the mini as a directional aid". You are placing your mini to mark your lie...it is just incidental that it also provides direction.

If I was on your card or a Tournament Official, I would first ask...

What was the purpose of the player placing their mini?
- to mark their lie?
--then it is legal
- to show the direction?
--then it is illegal

So by order of precedence, marking the lie is legal...which makes the action legal. Plus, minis are legally used as directional aids....you must place the mini on the line of play. So that provides direction in a legal way.

 

[Steve West]

...But it seems biscoe and I are on the same page...

Yep, and we're getting there. Look how many rules no longer start with: "Hey guys, it'd be cool if..."

 

[txmxer]

Using a device to directly assist a throw is what makes the device illegal.

You can carry a disc-retrieving stick, but if you extend it and hook your disc on the end and fling the disc with it, it is an illegal device you used for that throw.

Part B. just makes clear that placing an object as a directional aid is to be considered the same as directly assisting a throw. That could be worded better, but it's two penalty throws.

There goes my C1 putting technique!

 

[curt]

But just saying "it is not allowed" makes me think that the penalty would be the same as for violating other rules, which is one penalty throw

This isn't how the rulebook is structured. There's no such thing as a one stroke standard for violating a rule. Every rule has the penalty explicitly stated.

This rule follows the format of the other rules in the book. There's a section called illegal devices. The first several define the subject matter (illegal devices in this instance. Then there's a penalty for violating the rule.

The difference between object and device isn't important. Since 813.02.B is in the illegal device section, it is clearly defining the characteristics of an illegal device and the penalty is 2 strokes.

 

[coupe]

This isn't how the rulebook is structured. There's no such thing as a one stroke standard for violating a rule. Every rule has the penalty explicitly stated.

This rule follows the format of the other rules in the book. There's a section called illegal devices. The first several define the subject matter (illegal devices in this instance. Then there's a penalty for violating the rule.

The difference between object and device isn't important. Since 813.02.B is in the illegal device section, it is clearly defining the characteristics of an illegal device and the penalty is 2 strokes.

Yes. Exactly. :thmbup::thmbup::thmbup:

813.02.B does not stand by itself and cannot be interpreted in isolation from the context it is placed within. The fact that the prohibition against placing an object as directional aid is placed in the section 813.02 Illegal Device, and not elsewhere, necessarily defines such objects as illegal devices, just as the permission to use devices and items of the type listed in 813.02.C necessarily defines such items a NOT illegal devices. In neither instance is further definition necessary or warranted.

 

[robdeforge]

This isn't how the rulebook is structured. There's no such thing as a one stroke standard for violating a rule. Every rule has the penalty explicitly stated.

This rule follows the format of the other rules in the book. There's a section called illegal devices. The first several define the subject matter (illegal devices in this instance. Then there's a penalty for violating the rule.

The difference between object and device isn't important. Since 813.02.B is in the illegal device section, it is clearly defining the characteristics of an illegal device and the penalty is 2 strokes.

Yup, for some reason I had read the Enforcement section and came to that conclusion, but I see that you are correct. swing and a miss on my reading comprehension and I appreciate all that took time to explain

 

[BillFleming]

Yup, for some reason I had read the Enforcement section and came to that conclusion, but I see that you are correct. swing and a miss on my reading comprehension and I appreciate all that took time to explain

I can fully understand the need for clarification. Sometimes people just misread/misinterpret the rules, especially when two or more rules might be involved.

I was a Tournament Official for Vista at the Memorial. A question I had was kind of similar to this one. On one hole, there was a mando that you had to stay to the left of, the mando line was painted from the mando and onto the right for a fair distance. To the right of the mando was also an OB sidewalk. A player's disc crossed the OB and then the painted Mando line...so both restricted areas were entered. Two drop zones were in effect, one for the mando and one for the OB (if a disc went OB on the tee shot, the player had the option to play from where it was last inbounds or from the OB drop zone). The player went to the OB drop zone. Another player on the card said it was played wrong that the mando took precedence regardless of which happened first. I had to show him the rules in the rule book (since both penalties - one throw - were the same, the first took precedence). He accepted it, but still felt it was the wrong call and that the mando always takes precedence, but he couldn't point to a rule or anything. The totally weird part was that the mando drop zone was actually closer to the basket, from the OB drop zone the player still had to pass the mando.

There will always be questions about precedence or does this rule override this other one.