PDGA rules exam Question that has me stumped.

[rhatton1]

Maybe it's just the questions wording that has riled me somehow. I keep putting myself in the position of player N and if that situation occurred to me I would be absolutely furious. Not only are you being called a cheat by three other players you are being given a stroke penalty with no burden of proof whatsoever - they haven't seen you cheating, they just don't believe you are telling the truth? We've all seen many many strange and unexpected lies from throws where if you hadn't seen it arrive there you'd never believe it had.

We're all also encouraged to keep up speed of play. I get to my lie, I'm good to go, I crack on. If someone had any doubts I'd hope they would voice them before I took my shot anyway.

The idea that I could step up to a perfectly good lie, throw my perfectly good shot and get penalised does not sit well.

Also if you question someone on moving a lie enough to give them a stroke penalty then surely they should be disqualified for cheating anyway? How can you continue a round where a group has just accused you of cheating/lieing and penalised you for it. You're either a cheat and should be out or you're not and you're taken at your word? I can't see the situation where both can apply? Ie you're not a cheat, but we didn't see it so here's a stroke penalty for good measure? Really? I'm not seeing the shade of grey. The rule becomes superfluous. Competition Manual 3.03 C 1 takes over.

And also, is the answer listed as correct, correct? If a player has taken the shot and then subsequently (but before another player throws) the lie was deemed to be incorrect, isn't it a misplay? - 811 F C Shouldn't it be a rethrow and a one shot penalty? The wording of the question seems to suggest they allow his throw and the round to continue but give him a stroke.

This has got me as annoyed as though it has happened to me

 

[krupicka]

Sounds like he had a chance to verify to me but it would come down to he said/she said nonsense. There is really not quite enough info here to make an educated judgement. If the bolded part includes Player A arriving at the lie in question and then doing the measuring with player B in place 20 feet away the whole time I would tend to side with Player A. Is this an actual case? If so, hopefully i will not be subjected to a round with Player B any time soon.

This was an actual case unfortunately. Since player B was just standing there and not making any attempt or indication that it was questionable, I ruled in favor of player A. It wasn't like player A was in a rush. He paced off his lie, chose a disc, etc. Player B wasn't making any motion/comment/etc. where he was trying to verify it but prevented from doing so by player A's actions. If player B was sill walking towards player A and player A threw, I would have ruled that the disc would have to be considered OB.

 

[tonyroberts]

I don't see any ambiguity. If someone in the group says, "that drive may be OB," or "that's going to be close to OB," then the group checks the lie to make sure before you mark and throw. If you're within a meter of the line and plan to take your relief, the logical thing to do is have a cardmate verify that the disc is indeed inbounds and the the relief you are taking is correct.

 

[Nova P]

I don't see any ambiguity. If someone in the group says, "that drive may be OB," or "that's going to be close to OB," then the group checks the lie to make sure before you mark and throw. If you're within a meter of the line and plan to take your relief, the logical thing to do is have a cardmate verify that the disc is indeed inbounds and the the relief you are taking is correct.

Absolutely. If a cardmate's disc is near OB, I make it a point to walk with them, look it over, cheerfully say something like "lookin' good!" or "close one!" and move away to let them throw. (I make sure to use good cheer because a raging narcissist once accused me of being nosy. As if things that happen on my card are none of my business. . .)

 

[rhatton1]

If you put an exact distance on it (call it within X of OB), you're still creating a situation where a player who is near that area will just claim "it was X+1 away from the line" if questioned about the unseen disc's status after the player has moved the disc.

Yes but it's a situation where there is a lot more pressure on the player to play it correctly.

From a distance away in most instances you might not be able to see the disc but you can see where the player is standing. If they are taking a stance within a meter of OB or even close to this or moving their mini it puts the burden on the player to ask for guidance from the group. This would negate the need for this rule altogether, any perceived infringement would be straight to cheating and disqualification there could be no Grey area as their currently is. Three people would have to be absolutely sure that the player had just picked up and moved their disc more than a meter.

 

[rhatton1]

I suspect I play on a course with more OB than a lot of you from the answers above. At Quarry Park over here every hole has OB... well, it used to be everywhere, now thankfully, it's just most places, hopefully one day it will just be in some places....

If every disc near what could be considered OB needed to be approved by the group we'd never finish a round..... The only ones you'd ask for a second opinion on are questionable ones, up against a fence or on a riverbank where you'd want to be sure. Unless you had really good prior reason not to you'd just take the other players at their word.

 

[tonyroberts]

If every disc near what could be considered OB needed to be approved by the group we'd never finish a round..... The only ones you'd ask for a second opinion on are questionable ones, up against a fence or on a riverbank where you'd want to be sure. Unless you had really good prior reason not to you'd just take the other players at their word.

The important thing in a competition is that you and your cardmates are clear about what you're doing -- before you do it. If there's any doubt about your footing, your lie, or your mark, you just ask "is this OK?"

Consider the drive in the original post that may have been OB. As you approach the lie, it becomes clear that you're well off the line. You tell a cardmate "looks like I'm about 15 feet from the line." He agrees and your good. It doesn't take all day.

 

[biscoe]

This was an actual case unfortunately. Since player B was just standing there and not making any attempt or indication that it was questionable, I ruled in favor of player A. It wasn't like player A was in a rush. He paced off his lie, chose a disc, etc. Player B wasn't making any motion/comment/etc. where he was trying to verify it but prevented from doing so by player A's actions. If player B was sill walking towards player A and player A threw, I would have ruled that the disc would have to be considered OB.

Sounds like how I would have handled it as well.

 

[JC17393]

I suspect I play on a course with more OB than a lot of you from the answers above. At Quarry Park over here every hole has OB... well, it used to be everywhere, now thankfully, it's just most places, hopefully one day it will just be in some places....

If every disc near what could be considered OB needed to be approved by the group we'd never finish a round..... The only ones you'd ask for a second opinion on are questionable ones, up against a fence or on a riverbank where you'd want to be sure. Unless you had really good prior reason not to you'd just take the other players at their word.

I think you're exaggerating about the extra time to make a point, but no one is arguing that every lie needs to be "approved" by the group in order to be in bounds. It is only, as you say, the questionable ones that really need to be verbally and formally confirmed. And if a group is moving through the course as it should by rule, it should rarely, if ever, need to take extra time to deal with discs near enough to OB to be "approved". I mean, how big are these fairways and how far are players throwing that the group gets so separated from one another that they can't settle 99% of cases without taking a single extra step more than they would otherwise?

On my home course, 14 of 18 holes have OB. I probably played 100 or so rounds last year between casual and tournament settings, and I can count on one hand the number of instances where we had a questionable shot where we had to get right up close to the disc to determine or confirm that it was in bounds. The rest, even when the disc was within 5-10 feet of the line, were easy enough to see from as far away as the tee to call it good without making a production out of it. No need for the thrower to ask for confirmation, no need for any group member to go out of his way to confirm a disc's status.

 

[Dan Ensor]

I don't see sufficient information in the question. Why is no one there to clarify? If it's willing, I'd imagine they're taking my determination as accurate.

I'd also like to see clarification on what is necessary to "determine OB status". Where does it say my determination is insufficient? Where does it state the necessary steps for me to take to cover my ass?

And given that none of those complaints are valid, wouldn't the correct answer still be "The group decides whether the likelihood of OB necessitates an OB ruling."?

 

[araytx]

You guys are over-thinking. In the OP, the "in the woods" + "close to OB", together with "goes over, quickly marked and threw" were the key things.

 

[krupicka]

The answer is clear by the rules for that question. A lot of the discussion is exploring the gray edges of the rule.

 

[Discette]

It sometimes seems like Disc Golf rules have been written with cheating in mind rather than just to create a level playing field this questions wording requires an expectation of cheating to be read as requiring a penalty.

Sad to say, but some of the rules were written specifically because early in the sport, there was THAT GUY that would stretch every single rule in a not so sportsmanlike manner. Because of THAT GUY, there are at least four rules in the rule book specifically written to prevent HIM from cheating. To this day, these rules remain to keep all the not-so-honest folks honest. Folks that are good sports and want to follow the rules know they have to ask a card mate to check to prevent "the appearance of impropriety". Usually good sports don't mind because that is part of the rules.

I guarantee you that if these rules were not in place, THAT GUY would still continue to "push it" to this very day!

We know you are not THAT GUY. However, when you do have to play a round with a "less than honest" player, you will have an appreciation for why we have these rules.

 

[JC17393]

The irony is that a whole lot of the rules discussions/debates that crop up on message boards like this tend to devolve into in how a given rule absolutely will be pushed or exploited by a THAT GUY, thus it needs to be re-written or stricken from the book altogether.

 

[Discette]

The irony is that a whole lot of the rules discussions/debates that crop up on message boards like this tend to devolve into in how a given rule absolutely will be pushed or exploited by a THAT GUY, thus it needs to be re-written or stricken from the book altogether.

I get that every rule can have loopholes, but several rules written for THAT GUY closed those glaring loopholes early in the sport! I used the words THAT GUY instead of typing out his name. THAT GUY was a real life person that was super friendly and charismatic! Ask some other old timer for his name. They all know it.

 

[JC17393]

I get that every rule can have loopholes, but several rules written for THAT GUY closed those glaring loopholes early in the sport! I used the words THAT GUY instead of typing out his name. THAT GUY was a real life person that was super friendly and charismatic! Ask some other old timer for his name. They all know it.

I believe it.

To me, the irony is that for all the rules arguments fueled by the possibility that a fictious boogey-man "THAT GUY" could bend or exploit a rule, the discussion in this thread is fueled by someone suggesting that a rule specifically created to counter a THAT GUY shouldn't or needn't be concerned with a THAT GUY.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'd probably answer the test question correctly, but with some uncertainty. I'd want to ask the test, "How close?" Being unable to do so, I'd assume it's close enough for its status to be debatable, and that that's what the question was getting at.

The actual rule doesn't mention "close", and in practice we don't pause to make a determination on every lie.

I'm not sure how to fix that, even if a fix were deemed necessary.

I rather assume that the rule isn't just to stop cheating. Cheating is covered elsewhere, and in other cases of potentially improving a lie by moving a disc, there isn't the same type of specific clause. This rule also applies---perhaps specifically applies---to cases where the status of the disc is debatable, and players can have an honest disagreement over it, recognized in the possibility of a split decision as to whether a disc is out-of-bounds, or not. If it's close enough to be uncertain, it's too close for the thrower to make the determination alone.

In practice, I'm one of those players who plays courses with lots of OB, much of which is vaguely delineated. That, along with the people I play with and the divisions I play tournaments in, leads to the practical application of the rule in this way. If it's close enough to be uncertain, the player will ask for a group decision (or concurrence). Otherwise, they won't.

 

[DG_player]

The rules don't grant the player in your second situation "benefit of the doubt". The group is doing so, arguably against the rules of play.

Rule 812.B.2 requires that all players "[w]atch the other members of the group throw in order to ensure rules compliance and to help locate discs". In the first example (the test question scenario), the player is throwing from a location before the group can arrive to confirm the disc's status, in violation of 806.02.H. That's on the thrower. In the second example, unless the thrower rushed into the woods and threw out before any of the rest of the group had a chance to put themselves in a position to watch him*, the group is failing to uphold their obligation to watch the thrower closely enough to ensure he plays from his proper lie.

*I find it unlikely that a player would be able to execute that quickly if we're talking about a position in which he is obscured from view of the other players even if they're nearby and trying to observe.

There is still a fundamental difference:

In the case of the lie near OB, you would be assessed a penalty, even if there was no indication or belief by the group that you did anything remotely nefarious or cheated in anyway.

In the "woods" case, there is no penalty that I can see. The worst I could possibly think of is a courtesy warning, for failing to wait for the group. The only way there would be any penalties is if the group had reason to believe you actually were cheating and changed your lie.

As far as your *, I don't see why it would be any more difficult for a player to throw from an obscured position in the woods before their lie was verified than it would be to throw from a near OB position. Both of them see pretty unlikely in practice, but if there is going to be a rule that requires group verification of a lie, it doesn't make much sense that it doesn't cover all instances.

 

[cheesethin]

806.2.H makes sense as a targeted rule, to shut down a specific 'valuable'/'effective' avenue of cheating (THAT GUY). If you declare yourself safe and then pick up your 'OB by an inch' disc before anyone can dispute your call, you have instantly gained a stroke.

Improving your lie in the woods or wherever, while still cheating and benefiting you, isn't guaranteed to save you a stroke in the way the OB cheat does. Hence the value of the cheat and the value of having a specific rule to combat it.

Both are cheating, and prohibited by the rules. 806.02.H just acts as a deterrent and gives the group a means of redress(?), in one specific case.

I see it being hard and rare for 806.02.H to be misapplied nefariously, for reasons others have mentioned.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[araytx]

If you were close to an OB line you wouldn't even think of asking the group first. If your disc was touching an OB line you probably would if it was a borderline call you definitely would.

Close could be 10 meters away. the wording is to loose. Unless we are asking for every lie to be confirmed by the group before throwing.

I always do. Maybe not the whole group but 1 or 2 people so that I already have a consensus -- on ANYTHING close or questionable.

Yes but it's a situation where there is a lot more pressure on the player to play it correctly.

From a distance away in most instances you might not be able to see the disc but you can see where the player is standing. If they are taking a stance within a meter of OB or even close to this or moving their mini it puts the burden on the player to ask for guidance from the group. This would negate the need for this rule altogether, any perceived infringement would be straight to cheating and disqualification there could be no Grey area as their currently is. Three people would have to be absolutely sure that the player had just picked up and moved their disc more than a meter.

I've never thought it was saying the player was cheating. I can be OB under the rules, or receive a penalty stoke under the rules without cheating.

I suspect I play on a course with more OB than a lot of you from the answers above. At Quarry Park over here every hole has OB... well, it used to be everywhere, now thankfully, it's just most places, hopefully one day it will just be in some places....

If every disc near what could be considered OB needed to be approved by the group we'd never finish a round..... The only ones you'd ask for a second opinion on are questionable ones, up against a fence or on a riverbank where you'd want to be sure. Unless you had really good prior reason not to you'd just take the other players at their word.

The one thing throughout all of this I don't get is people saying how much "waiting" or "extra time" is being taken to verify the OB/IB status. Aren't the players in the group supposed to be WATCHING their card mates throws to be sure the throws are legal? The premise in the test question was that the player got to his lie so quickly that not one could. And if so, then yes, he deserves that OB stroke. But if he walks up with normal timing and flow, there should be another card mate close enough to verify BEFORE he throws.