Excessive Time

[JC17393]

What would it say if that was the intent?

Perhaps if the word "remains" is added to the free and clear of distractions clause as a condition under which the 30 seconds begins: "3. The playing area is and remains clear and free of distractions."

That would imply to me that the player is entitled to a full 30 seconds with a distraction-free playing area and that if the 30 seconds is interrupted by a distraction, he can start the clock over.

 

[araytx]

Who says a leaf blowing is a legitimate distraction? Mother nature is part of the course, and not distractions. chains ratling on other holes is also part of the game. A car driving by, may og may not be, depending on the specifics. If it honks just as you are about to throw, I would count that as a legitimate distraction, if it's just driving by behind the tee, it obviously isn't.

but that "FIRST" isn't in the rules is it? (Dont look it up, it isn't) if a legit distraction occurs while the player is getting ready to throw, the playing are wasn't free and clear of distractions to begin with, so the 30 seconds never really started.
I can accept that there isn't a black and white answer to this debate in the rules, but as there isn't any direct language to support your interpretation of the rule in favour of mine, you really cannot dismiss mine as a legitimate interpretation. In that situation the burden of proof must be on on those arguing the stricter and more complex interpretation.

I don't see the word FIRST in the rules... Did I miss it?

If that was the intention, I would expect it to be there.

I don't believe the last statement at all krupicka. In fact, I think quite the opposite ... IF the RC meant it was for every time the playing area became free of distractions, it would say that -- 30 seconds after "each time" the playing area is free of distractions ... or "every time...."

Joakim, as far as the burden being on us, You will see that my strict interpretation is based upon a strict reading of the words -- not extrapolating anything other than word meaning. And while I am pretty sure from my days as a referee that rules should have to specifically allow something for it to be legal, not like laws where it has to specifically disallow for it to be illegal (we disagree), I feel I have a compelling argument as to why the re-set to full 30 seconds forever argument is not what that rule says.

Guys, my argument is in the paragraph below below. I also want to hear your answers to my questions, yet all I have so far is you believe that the rules allow a full 30 seconds after EACH distraction. Which by your interpretation means he has infinite time if he gets distracted within the 30 seconds. And Joakim, I am not even questioning what the thrower thinks is a distraction -- obviously not. By our interpretation he can have all the distractions he wants -- he just doesn't get all the 30 seconds'es he wants.


________________________________________________________________________

[point of order ... I do think we're all talking totally theoretically here. In a dg career we may come across this situation less than 5 times in 20-30 years of tournaments. We're talking about a rule that comes into play if and only if a player begins absolutely abusing it. Having read you guys's comments before and respecting them a lot, I know common sense takes over -- the old 'if he's taking too long warn him before anything is called, them brace him with it could be called next time, then call it' ... but since the discussion is about what we disagree upon what the rules say, let's proceed.]


_________________________________________________________________________



No guys, the words "first" or "first time" or "originally clear" is not in the rules -- nothing like that at all. And I think you both are glossing over and not responding to my position maybe because you're focused on that word, so let's remove it. The reason JC & I aren't adding anything else in the rule and what it says, is because everything in 804.01 A is singular ... referring to one event. for the sake of clarity only (not a rule) but so you know what I am talking about, let's label the events [NOTE THAT -- once (by definition) the conditions 804.01 A.1 & 804.01 A.2 are met, then they are met for the entirety of the subsequent player's turn, i.e., there's no way it's not after the previous thrower has thrown and no way it's not after he's had sufficient time to arrive at the disc -- so we're only dealing with 804.01 A.3]. Labeling only, so at "time1"-- all three conditions of 804.01 A are met; therefore, the thrower has 30 seconds to make his throw. At time2-- at a subsequent time prior to the 30 seconds elapsing, the third condition of 804.01A is again unmet and the player elects to wait until the playing area is once again free of distractions. At time3, the playing area becomes once again free of distractions and all three conditions of 804.01 A are met. And just for the sake of argument, another event, time4, is the same as time2 except even later; and time5 once again the playing area is free and clear, of distractions therefore all three conditions of 804.01 A are met. And, etc., etc. You guys don't seem to agree that the events occurring in the immediacy following the time3 is still AFTER time1. I think it (singular) is. That's what we are saying -- not adding the word "first" or "original" to the rule, just using it for explaining the interpretation that time3 (the event) IS after time1. Similarly, time5 is also after time1. and time7 is after time1; and time9, and time11 etc. etc.

Again not trying to be that guy, because I believe that some preventative work and communication in advance would prevent this situation from ever occurring... unless, of course, the thrower was trying to be that guy and get all the time he wanted because the rain was about to stopped (so he thought) or the wind was about to die down (so he thought), etc. That's when I'd say, "... look man, I've warned you privately about exceeding your time by a full minute twice before, I said next time it was gonna be a call, and now you're trying to say the rule doesn't say what it says. I give you 100% reign over what you think is and is not a distraction, I was even willing to wait 4 minutes for that train to go by, but now we're here, and the rule simply doesn't allow a re-set of a full 30 every time you say you're having a distraction..." That's what I am talking about. The rule in 804.01 A is speaking only in a singular context, never about multiples.


Wow, I just spent way too much time on something that will rarely, if ever, occur.

Perhaps if the word "remains" is added to the free and clear of distractions clause as a condition under which the 30 seconds begins: "3. The playing area is and remains clear and free of distractions."

That would imply to me that the player is entitled to a full 30 seconds with a distraction-free playing area and that if the 30 seconds is interrupted by a distraction, he can start the clock over.

I agree with that 100%. Perhaps we just need to let the RC know they should make it clearer, whichever way is their intent.

 

[DavidSauls]

I read "distractions" as plural----as in, if there is a series of distractions, it includes and encompasses them all. I read "after distractions" to mean, after all of those distractions.

The weak link is that the rule relies on common sense as to what is a distraction. But it probably has to, for the sake of weight.

 

[Steve West]

Here's a situation:

Player gets ready to throw, taking 25 seconds or so, and someone runs out onto the fairway. I don't think the player should be forced to take a time penalty for waiting for the child to get out of the way. In fact, that player can't throw yet because of another rule.

On the other hand, it seems like that player shouldn't need another full 30 seconds after the fairway is clear, because all the figuring out what disc to throw, etc. has already been done.

Would a total of 30 seconds of distraction-free time work?

 

[DavidSauls]

Here's a situation:

Player gets ready to throw, taking 25 seconds or so, and someone runs out onto the fairway. I don't think the player should be forced to take a time penalty for waiting for the child to get out of the way. In fact, that player can't throw yet because of another rule.

On the other hand, it seems like that player shouldn't need another full 30 seconds after the fairway is clear, because all the figuring out what disc to throw, etc. has already been done.

Would a total of 30 seconds of distraction-free time work?

What if the child ran out at 29 seconds?

I played a tournament where a high-school cross-country meet was being held on trails that weaved through the course. You wouldn't want to add up the intervals, or force a player to throw when a 3-second gap comes between runners.

Admittedly, it's much ado about nothing. Virtually no one's being called for excessive time, even when the only reason is they simply want to take a lot of time---unless they do it so often that it really irks the rest of the group. No one's testing the definition of "distracted", or using a series of legitimate distractions to stretch their time to throw into many minutes.

But for myself, when I read the rule, it leaves "distraction" undefined, but says the 30 seconds starts after the distractions. Distractions being plural, I read that as all the distractions, and after being, well, "after", I read that as 30 seconds after all of the distractions.

 

[sidewinder22]

Not this again. Can some pre rube the old tread?

By that same argument, there is nothing in the rules that say the clock pauses and then restarts. It isn't reasonable to argue that your 30 seconds is made up of several small periods of time. You are perfectly allowed to have a preshot rutine of 29 seconds, and it is unreasonable for a player to not be allowed his full 30 seconds, after a legitimate distraction. You are allowed 30 seconds AFTER the area is clear of distraction. Not a total of 30 seconds of distraction free playing area. No reasonable person would legitimately argue anything else. Even though I normally consider your post highly reasonable, this is just a ridicoulus interpretation, and without a NBA style shot clock, totally unenforceable.

Exactly. :clap:

 

[Agricolae]

"Distractions" are not defined. A player should not be penalized by a legitimate distraction. A player is allowed 30 seconds to include a pre-shot routine. If a players disc selection + pre-shot routine takes 25 seconds - to which he is legally entitled - and a legitimate distraction occurs during his run-up at 27 seconds, are you seriously suggesting that player must reset and complete his throw in 3 seconds or violate the excessive time rule?

I can't believe the intent is "best to keep your disc selection + routine + throw to less than 15 seconds in case there's a legitimate distraction and you need to reset. BTW, keep in mind if there are two legitimate distractions, you're screwed. Sorry."

 

[coupe]

But for myself, when I read the rule, it leaves "distraction" undefined, but says the 30 seconds starts after the distractions. Distractions being plural, I read that as all the distractions, and after being, well, "after", I read that as 30 seconds after all of the distractions.

No, it says that a player has a maximum of 30 seconds beginning when all three conditions are met: the previous player has thrown AND the player has had a reasonable to arrive at his or her thrown disc AND the area is clear and free of distractions. It is a compound condition, not three simple conditions.

Even if one allows for multiple distractions to delay the start of the 30 seconds, there is nothing in the wording of the rule that implies, or even remotely suggests, that the 30 clock, once started, can be stopped or interrupted, nor is there anything in the rule that implies the clock, once started, can be reset.

As a practical matter, stopping or interrupting the clock may be necessary in certain exceptional circumstances in order to comply with other rules, such 801.04.A, and in those circumstances fairness (801.01.A) may dictate that the thrower be granted additional time above and beyond the 30 second maximum specified in 804.01.A, however, these would be exceptional rather than ordinary occurrences.

 

[scarpfish]

Here's a situation:

Player gets ready to throw, taking 25 seconds or so, and someone runs out onto the fairway. I don't think the player should be forced to take a time penalty for waiting for the child to get out of the way. In fact, that player can't throw yet because of another rule.

On the other hand, it seems like that player shouldn't need another full 30 seconds after the fairway is clear, because all the figuring out what disc to throw, etc. has already been done.

Would a total of 30 seconds of distraction-free time work?

This is how I would word the rule. After any initial distractions have cleared, the player gets 30 seconds. Should any subsequent distractions occur before 20 seconds, the clock will pause and resume at that count after the distraction has cleared. Should the same occur after 20 seconds, the player will get a new 10 second count.

And tweak those numbers if you want, but I think that seems like a fair balance which specifies parameters for the spirit of the rule.

 

[araytx]

This is how I would word the rule. After any initial distractions have cleared, the player gets 30 seconds. Should any subsequent distractions occur before 20 seconds, the clock will pause and resume at that count after the distraction has cleared. Should the same occur after 20 seconds, the player will get a new 10 second count.

And tweak those numbers if you want, but I think that seems like a fair balance which specifies parameters for the spirit of the rule.

Personally, I like that, but we need to know what the RC intended.

I am guessing that their intent was that a player really only needs 15 to 20 seconds, so they made the actual rule 30 seconds to allow for plenty of time to deal with the other issues that inevitably may occur on the course. Unfortunately, since the rule says 30 seconds, now a lot of people (rightfully) believe that they can use every ounce of the 30 and not be called. Allowing 30 seconds for every throw (in my interpretation; remember that it's 29 + 29 + 29 + ... in other people's interpretation) doesn't address using so much time on those 40 to 50 throws per round that you already know how you handle based basically on experience. Heck, I'd have to change my own routine if it were 15 seconds normally. EVERY major sport with timing issues has implemented rules to speed the game up (NFL, MLB, pro tennis, FIFA and other soccer leagues, etc.) -- and for good reason. There's a reason that DG is hard to watch on live stream, yet we love edited coverage.

If I were writing the excessive time rule from scratch, I'd make the rule 15 seconds (same conditions as 804.01A) for each throw, with each player being allowed three 30-second timeouts (during his turn) per 18-hole round (proportional for different length rounds). Then he can use as he sees fit, knowing that if he uses early and then later has a tough lie, either figure it out before you get there or know you run the risk of penalty. Add the TO's to the game strategy in a tourney. I also think the time rule might have a chance of getting called on the habitual slow players, with other players knowing that they have time-outs. And make it like the last two minutes of the football game. If you get called for going over the 15 seconds, you can either take the violation or use a TO.

 

[JoakimBL]

Let me start out with an agreement to araytx' claim that this is mostly a theoretical discussion about the correct interpretation of the rules intent, rather than any practical implications to tournament play.
I have a suspicion that you are reading the rules to suit your opinion of how the rule should be. It's not that I think that you would need the full 30 seconds after a (legitimate) distraction, as disc selection and strategy of the throw has already been determined. However, depending on the duration of the distraction, conditions might have changed, making it necessary to change those things. But that is a very rare scenario, so lets not focus on that, but just keep in mind that it is a possibility that the rules need to account for.
If the interpretation of the clock not resetting for distractions is correct, then it wouldn't stop either, if a new distraction occurred. That is the logical extension of the argument. Clearly that is not the intent of the RC, so you have manufactured the "pausing the shot clock"-rule to fit that interpretation.

804.01 Excessive Time
A. A maximum of 30 seconds is allowed to each player to make a throw after:
1. [...]
2. [...]
3. The playing area is clear and free of distractions

It even says "A maximum of 30 seconds", so that leaves no room for pausing that. So it is actually black and white. Either the clock starts as soon as the distractions are gone, and keeps on going for 30 seconds no matter what OR a new distraction negates the third condition that needs to be met for the clock to start.

Secondly it doesn't say "the player is distracted", so it's not enough for the player to claim a distraction, the group/official has to agree that there is a distraction. The distraction also needs to be in the playing area, so distractions outside of that can be disregarded, ie. chains rattling on a distant basket.

Some of you claim that distraction isn't defined, but in reality, that definition is impossible. You cannot list every possible legitimate distraction, or every possible thing that cannot be considered a distraction (falling leaves) It's clearly a common sense/you no it when it happens kind of thing. It isn't even the issue here, as we aren't debating what is and isn't a distraction. A bee buzzing off to the side of the player shouldn't bee distracting, but if it flyes into his face, I would allow for that to be a distraction. A car driving behind the teepad shouldn't be, but if it sounds its horn in the players run up, I would allow it as a distraction.

I don't even think the rule needs any clarification. I just think you guys are trying really really hard to read the rules as you want them to be.

 

[krupicka]

As I understand it the intent of the rule is to keep players from waiting out the wind to their favor. While other rules (e.g. the marking rules) were updated to facilitate speed of play, I don't think that was the original point of the 30 second rule.

 

[JC17393]

I don't even think the rule needs any clarification. I just think you guys are trying really really hard to read the rules as you want them to be.

I can agree that while that might be the case, it is the case for every single person participating in the discussion. You are reading the rule to be what you want it to be just as much as me or aray. Let's not pretend that anyone is taking a 100% objective and unbiased approach to interpreting the rule.

 

[filobedo]

Can an attorney chime in? This is getting to be like the JFK conspiracy.

 

[JoakimBL]

I can agree that while that might be the case, it is the case for every single person participating in the discussion. You are reading the rule to be what you want it to be just as much as me or aray. Let's not pretend that anyone is taking a 100% objective and unbiased approach to interpreting the rule.

It's not that I have a strong preference, it's just that that is what I believe the rule to be. I'm not trying to modify the rule to fit what I think it should be. Sure I think your interpretation is ridiculous, but it's not like I have the opinion that 30 seconds is tight, and that the rules should be interpreted to allow for extra time. You are actively interpreting a stricter timelimit into the rules. And then adding some kind of leniency out of the blue, to try and not make it too strict, because you can see the obvious flaw in your own interpretation, if a distraction happens during your allotted time.

 

[araytx]

Let me start out with an agreement to araytx' claim that this is mostly a theoretical discussion about the correct interpretation of the rules intent, rather than any practical implications to tournament play.
I have a suspicion that you are reading the rules to suit your opinion of how the rule should be. It's not that I think that you would need the full 30 seconds after a (legitimate) distraction, as disc selection and strategy of the throw has already been determined. However, depending on the duration of the distraction, conditions might have changed, making it necessary to change those things...

I don't even think the rule needs any clarification. I just think you guys are trying really really hard to read the rules as you want them to be.

I can agree that while that might be the case, it is the case for every single person participating in the discussion. You are reading the rule to be what you want it to be just as much as me or aray. Let's not pretend that anyone is taking a 100% objective and unbiased approach to interpreting the rule.

Fair point, JC, fair point. Joakim as well. I guess I am seeing it and interpreting is strictly so that it addresses my pet peeve -- the guy that constantly takes forever and basically abuses the time issues even after private warnings. When I've privately expressed my interpretation of the rule, they eventually sped up. Perhaps I don't want this to become the second-most abused non-call in disc golf.

As I understand it the intent of the rule is to keep players from waiting out the wind to their favor. While other rules (e.g. the marking rules) were updated to facilitate speed of play, I don't think that was the original point of the 30 second rule.

Hmmmm, that's interesting. I didn't know that. I was guessing quite the opposite. Do I need to start a new thread or is this on topic?

Thoughts on 'do we actually need to speed up the pace of play? ' What do you think of my proposal to change 804.01 to a maximum of 15 seconds with each player having three thirty-second time outs per round during his turn?​

 

[Steve West]

Thoughts on 'do we actually need to speed up the pace of play? ' What do you think of my proposal to change 804.01 to a maximum of 15 seconds with each player having three thirty-second time outs per round during his turn?

I like the current 30 seconds, because for almost all throws, we don't even need to keep track to know the player is in compliance. 15 would come into play too often. That might even slow down the game as play stops to argue about time or give out penalties.

Part of the appeal of the game is to get away from the daily clock. I like it when I finish a round and have no idea what time it is. This isn't a game where you should feel rushed, or need stay hyper vigilant about time.

Players already get one "time out" because the first ET violation is just a warning. I wouldn't want to add the complication of keeping track of multiple time outs. And, thirty seconds will hardly ever be enough time to do what one needs to do during a time out.

 

[sidewinder22]

Secondly it doesn't say "the player is distracted", so it's not enough for the player to claim a distraction, the group/official has to agree that there is a distraction. The distraction also needs to be in the playing area, so distractions outside of that can be disregarded, ie. chains rattling on a distant basket.

Some of you claim that distraction isn't defined, but in reality, that definition is impossible. You cannot list every possible legitimate distraction, or every possible thing that cannot be considered a distraction (falling leaves) It's clearly a common sense/you no it when it happens kind of thing. It isn't even the issue here, as we aren't debating what is and isn't a distraction. A bee buzzing off to the side of the player shouldn't bee distracting, but if it flyes into his face, I would allow for that to be a distraction. A car driving behind the teepad shouldn't be, but if it sounds its horn in the players run up, I would allow it as a distraction.

Playing area is not specifically defined. IMO "playing area" is different the playing surface or line of play. Distractions in your playing area can be from behind or sideways from the playing surface. People talking behind the tee are in the playing area and considered distracting. Anything in your area of senses can be distracting.

Also regarding bees, I'm allergic, so if I'm aware of a bee anywhere near me, I'm going to be distracted. We are allowed lie relief from bees/dangerous animals and would think safety would prevail here over a 30 second rule.

 

[sidewinder22]

Thoughts on 'do we actually need to speed up the pace of play? ' What do you think of my proposal to change 804.01 to a maximum of 15 seconds with each player having three thirty-second time outs per round during his turn?

No. That is called speed golf.

EVERY major sport with timing issues has implemented rules to speed the game up (NFL, MLB, pro tennis, FIFA and other soccer leagues, etc.) -- and for good reason. There's a reason that DG is hard to watch on live stream, yet we love edited coverage.

Here you are trying to band-aid a live TV logistics issue, as opposed to a real playing issue that really is not an issue.

The PGA doesn't have a time limit, but slow play is discouraged. Individual tournaments can impose a time limit. The PGA uses multiple cameras and switches to where the action is for live TV.

 

[Dcinmd]

Thoughts on 'do we actually need to speed up the pace of play? ' What do you think of my proposal to change 804.01 to a maximum of 15 seconds with each player having three thirty-second time outs per round during his turn?​

Great lets move the time to 15 seconds so that I can wait on the next tee box for 5 minutes while the group in front of me tries to find their discs.