Is it legal

[cheesethin]

.....I was referring to 'time to arrive at the lie' as unambiguously meaning 'travel time' and not 'shot and disc selection time'.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Dan Ensor]

Talk of tying shoelaces etc feels like nitpicking while ignoring my broader points.

Not nitpicking. Showing your stance as indefensible. There absolutely are other things than walking that are involved in reasonably arriving at your lie. You can't just ignore all the things up to the point you want to allow them and say you've logically proven something.

 

[teemkey]

.....I was referring to 'time to arrive at the lie' as unambiguously meaning 'travel time' and not 'shot and disc selection time'.

It's arrive at AND determine the lie. To determine the lie, you need to know where the target is, right?

 

[cheesethin]

.....Showing your stance as indefensible. .....

Ok then, let's see how firm the foundations of your position are.

Your argument is that this sentence:

2. They have had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie; and,

gives you permission to not start the 30 second timer until you have had time, and you don't specify how much time, until you've had time to choose your shot and choose your disc.

So in the scenario where you throw your shot into the edge of some trees and you don't know whether the disc has got a clear view of the basket or whether it's tucked in behind a tree, you don't know whether there is low canopy in your way or not, tell me, how are you going to choose your disc and how are you going to choose your shot without.......um......what's the phrase.......er.......you know......without arriving at and determining your lie?

In this scenario, how can you be there, working out what disc you want to throw, and working out what line at the basket you have, without being deemed to have arrived? And without being deemed to have determined your lie?

Is your argument that arriving means specifically stepping on to the lie? If it is then that seems like an obtuse reading of 'arrive'. If the rules meant that, wouldn't they say that? When I pull up at my mum's house and text my partner that 'I have arrived', am I lying because I'm still in the car on the road outside her house and not actually inside the front door?

The only time you are going to be able to choose what disc you want to throw and choose what line you want to throw BEFORE you have physically arrived at your disc is in the trivial circumstance where you can see where the disc is, and what line you have, pretty much from the get-go, which removes the need to allow people to choose their disc and shot before the excessive time clock starts in the first place.

Your interpretation of the excessive time rule only has any value to a player if they can choose their disc and choose their shot after they have seen where the disc is. For a large amount of shots that means actually physically being at the disc.

You my friend.... have arrived.

 

[cheesethin]

To be clear, if your starting point is that you don't like competitive idiots who game the excessive time rule for their own advantage, then sure, I'm with you.

I'm am only arguing what the rules, as currently written, can be interpreted to mean. I'm not arguing whether the rules are 'right' or 'wrong'.

 

[JC17393]

To be clear, if your starting point is that you don't like competitive idiots who game the excessive time rule for their own advantage, then sure, I'm with you.

I'm am only arguing what the rules, as currently written, can be interpreted to mean. I'm not arguing whether the rules are 'right' or 'wrong'.

There's a line between "gaming" any rule to one's advantage and simply enforcing a rule properly. And it's not a fine line, it's a broad bold line. However, in my experience in disc golf, there are way too many people who view plain old enforcement of a rule as "gaming". Makes it very difficult to enforce the rules when that enforcement too often gets painted as something underhanded or nefarious.

Also makes it tough to have earnest discussions of rules interpretation and enforcement if one side's argument is enforcing a rule is an unwelcome act of aggression.

 

[DoWork]

To be clear, if your starting point is that you don't like competitive idiots who game the excessive time rule for their own advantage, then sure, I'm with you.

I've actually seen the opposite- a guy who was starting the 30 second count from when someone got to their disc- before they put their bag down or even looked at the basket- as a means to pressure them during their throw. You'd get there and he'd be all "starting count" and once you'd throw, he would be like "That was 24 seconds" before he was nearly thrown out of the tourney for it. FWIW the guy is also a serial score fudger and has an awful reputation as a cheater and whiner throughout the region. He was also playing on a card with first year players, so it was viewed as being WAY over the line d-baggish. The rules can be abused in both directions, and that's worth noting.

 

[Steve West]

I've actually seen the opposite- a guy who was starting the 30 second count from when someone got to their disc- before they put their bag down or even looked at the basket- as a means to pressure them during their throw. You'd get there and he'd be all "starting count" and once you'd throw, he would be like "That was 24 seconds" before he was nearly thrown out of the tourney for it. FWIW the guy is also a serial score fudger and has an awful reputation as a cheater and whiner throughout the region. He was also playing on a card with first year players, so it was viewed as being WAY over the line d-baggish. The rules can be abused in both directions, and that's worth noting.

So, what you're saying is: 24 seconds is plenty of time for even a first year player to put their bag down, look at the target, pick out their line, grab their disc and throw.

That guy was starting the clock at the right moment, but he shouldn't have enforced it that way.

 

[DoWork]

So, what you're saying is: 24 seconds is plenty of time for even a first year player to put their bag down, look at the target, pick out their line, grab their disc and throw.

That guy was starting the clock at the right moment, but he shouldn't have enforced it that way.

So wait, you're siding with the guy who literally every single person that day agreed was being a complete dbag and was one move away from being physically thrown out of the park by his own team for his nefariously motivated and completely unreasonable interpretation of the rules?

I'm not sure what kind of person would back that kind of behavior, but I'm going to imagine something is being lost in translation and you're not the worst person imaginable.

 

[biscoe]

So wait, you're siding with the guy who literally every single person that day agreed was being a complete dbag and was one move away from being physically thrown out of the park by his own team for his nefariously motivated and completely unreasonable interpretation of the rules?

I'm not sure what kind of person would back that kind of behavior, but I'm going to imagine something is being lost in translation and you're not the worst person imaginable.

Just because the guy was being a dick about it doesn't mean he was incorrect about the rule. Ignoring his method of applying it what is "completely unreasonable" about his interpretation of the rule?

 

[JC17393]

So wait, you're siding with the guy who literally every single person that day agreed was being a complete dbag and was one move away from being physically thrown out of the park by his own team for his nefariously motivated and completely unreasonable interpretation of the rules?

I'm not sure what kind of person would back that kind of behavior, but I'm going to imagine something is being lost in translation and you're not the worst person imaginable.

Might want to read what Steve wrote again. He's not backing the guy's behavior. He's backing the guy's interpretation of the rule, which has zero to do with his behavior.

Clearly, the guy's an *******. I doubt anyone will argue otherwise based on your description. That doesn't render his interpretation and enforcement of the rule incorrect. Technically he got it right. His execution is what is lacking here. I've heard lots of stories about cops being dicks when pulling someone over for speeding. That the cop is a dick doesn't mean he was wrong to pull you over for going 45 in a 25. Nor does saying that you deserve a ticket for going 45 in a 25 mean that one is endorsing the cop's behavior.

 

[DoWork]

Just because the guy was being a dick about it doesn't mean he was incorrect about the rule. Ignoring his method of applying it what is "completely unreasonable" about his interpretation of the rule?

The 30 second rule exists as a guide to keep things moving, not as a weapon to intimidate newer players with. If one of them was taking way too long then fine, make them aware- but he came out swinging and trying to make these kids feel as uncomfortable as possible from the first tee.

 

[Steve West]

The 30 second rule exists as a guide to keep things moving, not as a weapon to intimidate newer players with. If one of them was taking way too long then fine, make them aware- but he came out swinging and trying to make these kids feel as uncomfortable as possible from the first tee.

We all agree that is bad behavior.

But, the time (usually) starts when the player gets to their lie, not after they've figured out what to throw.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Ok then, let's see how firm the foundations of your position are.

Your argument is that this sentence:



gives you permission to not start the 30 second timer until you have had time, and you don't specify how much time, until you've had time to choose your shot and choose your disc.

So in the scenario where you throw your shot into the edge of some trees and you don't know whether the disc has got a clear view of the basket or whether it's tucked in behind a tree, you don't know whether there is low canopy in your way or not, tell me, how are you going to choose your disc and how are you going to choose your shot without.......um......what's the phrase.......er.......you know......without arriving at and determining your lie?

In this scenario, how can you be there, working out what disc you want to throw, and working out what line at the basket you have, without being deemed to have arrived? And without being deemed to have determined your lie?

Is your argument that arriving means specifically stepping on to the lie? If it is then that seems like an obtuse reading of 'arrive'. If the rules meant that, wouldn't they say that? When I pull up at my mum's house and text my partner that 'I have arrived', am I lying because I'm still in the car on the road outside her house and not actually inside the front door?

The only time you are going to be able to choose what disc you want to throw and choose what line you want to throw BEFORE you have physically arrived at your disc is in the trivial circumstance where you can see where the disc is, and what line you have, pretty much from the get-go, which removes the need to allow people to choose their disc and shot before the excessive time clock starts in the first place.

Your interpretation of the excessive time rule only has any value to a player if they can choose their disc and choose their shot after they have seen where the disc is. For a large amount of shots that means actually physically being at the disc.

You my friend.... have arrived.

Arriving doesn't mean you've taken the full reasonable amount of time. Arriving actually has nothing to do with the rule at all (prepositional phrases, right?); it only nails down the sort of reasonable time. Whether you arrive or not, you get a reasonable amount of time to.

 

[cheesethin]

Arriving doesn't mean you've taken the full reasonable amount of time. Arriving actually has nothing to do with the rule at all (prepositional phrases, right?); it only nails down the sort of reasonable time. Whether you arrive or not, you get a reasonable amount of time to.

Lol, stretching much?

So are you and your mates running to your lies?

How about you justify your position for a change. Tell me what's makes you right.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[DoWork]

We all agree that is bad behavior.

But, the time (usually) starts when the player gets to their lie, not after they've figured out what to throw.

I understand and agree with the distinction you're making, but it's also an important distinction that these kids may not even have been technically at their lie in some cases. If someone starts the clock ticking when your first foot hits say within 2' of your disc and you haven't even started putting your bag down maybe you aren't even getting the full 30 allowed by the rules.

Just sayin. People get all kinds of tied up in the minutia of ambiguity and lose sight of what's really important and why those rules exist. I think the OP had a valid question and my example was simply the opppsite end of the spectrum of enforcement. We should all be trying to be somewhere in the middle IMO and that's what I think we are getting away from in the back-and-forth.

Apologies for any confusion or lack of clarity on my end.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Lol, stretching much?

So are you and your mates running to your lies?

How about you justify your position for a change. Tell me what's makes you right.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Not stretching. Explaining the English language. Which is important when interpreting rules in English.

I have already justified my position with common play. I have furthermore diminished your position by giving common examples of obviously reasonable things to do other than walk. Probably some other stuff too.

If you were at all correct, why use an ambiguous term (reasonable) instead of wording it "After sufficient time to walk to your lie"?

 

[cheesethin]

I have already justified my position with common play.

Genuinely asking, what do you mean by this bit?

 

[Dan Ensor]

Genuinely asking, what do you mean by this bit?

Common play is a casual round where everyone leaves happy about the rulings.

Rules aren't just made up for the sake of it. They're written down from actual events that were handled "correctly" (a way you want enforced regardless of whether you're the thrower or not).

Watching a group of friends play is where the rules should come from if possible. In this case especially (friends are reasonable, almost by definition). Friends will allow time to choose a shot. They will not allow you to wait for the wind to calm down. They'll say something about it, or stop being (golf) friends with you.

 

[Steve West]

...these kids may not even have been technically at their lie in some cases...

Then, their 30 seconds haven't started. (Assuming they're not being pokey about getting to their lie). They still don't get extra time to figure out a line and pick a disc.

As for the other debate, it is interesting to consider that a player may buy a little time by getting to the lie unreasonably fast. If a player was in a sprinter's stance and bolted to their lie as soon as the previous player had thrown and claimed they got there two seconds faster than was reasonable, I might give them 32 seconds at the lie.

Note that it's reasonable to get as close to your lie as you can before the guy before you throws.