Provisional Throws for Abandoned Throws

[sidewinder22]

Seems like this would be substituting the player's choice between two shots, with the group's. The group, knowing where the provisional lies, might be biased, one way or the other, on shots in the gray area between clearly in the declared abandon zone, and not.

We have issues with ill-defined OB. An even less-defined abandon zone would be worse.

Luckily, though worse, it would be rare. I see very few abandoned lies, and some of them are putts that rolled off to a really bad spot. Nothing that a provisional would save time on. I can't recall the last time I saw someone decide a drive was so bad that they abandoned it, in favor of a stroke and rethrow.

It would be a declared un-abandoned zone.

This wouldn't apply putts unless it rolled really far away into lost territory. One of the requirements of the provisional is that the status of the disc is unknown/possibly lost.

 

[DG_player]

If we were to try to make this work, the bias would need to be toward using the original throw. The group would need to be convinced the condition was met.

That kind of goes against the grain of usually leaning toward a better result for the thrower, so that might not turn out to be how it becomes enforced out in the field.

This seems like a bit of a pointless endeavor. I'm having a hard time of imagining a situation where anyone would opt to take a provisional outside OB/lost disc. Wouldn't you always want to assess the lie and look at the various options available? The only time I can see it actually coming into play would be the casual "it's getting late" situation from the original post. If it's a casual round and "it's getting late" does it really matter what the PDGA manual says? I personally would be ok with someone throwing a provisional, and then just deciding which they wanted to use. That level of flexibility wouldn't be appropriate in a tournament though.

It's sort of like ball golf. If you unexpectedly lose a ball in the rough during a casual round, you don't search for 5 minutes and then walk back to the tee like you're in the US Open and hold up every group behind you. You toss one down in the area you think it should be and play on.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

I'm having a hard time of imagining a situation where anyone would opt to take a provisional outside OB/lost disc. Wouldn't you always want to assess the lie and look at the various options available?

Yes... but maybe this brings up the times this makes sense comes with course knowledge.
The one I was iffy about was 15 at Dela. I looked up the map and yeah. You can drive that and once out of site hear a tree hit and not know if that was a kick to the basket, back toward you straight down or into the ravine... some of those kicks into the ravine aren't too bad... some are still inbounds and able to be found but very much re-tee territory.

It is basically saying if it went into the ravine past this particular tree this is my re-tee.

The idea you want to assess the lie first is part of the hang up of this argument it seems. throwing then assessing and taking the better throw isn't the request. Its I know this course, I know how that throw looked and if it did X after it went out of site I want to re-tee. If it did Y then I'm not going to re-tee.

It is a pretty rare case to re-tee without a penalty on the first throw, but there are cases.

 

[DG_player]

Yes... but maybe this brings up the times this makes sense comes with course knowledge.
The one I was iffy about was 15 at Dela. I looked up the map and yeah. You can drive that and once out of site hear a tree hit and not know if that was a kick to the basket, back toward you straight down or into the ravine... some of those kicks into the ravine aren't too bad... some are still inbounds and able to be found but very much re-tee territory.

It is basically saying if it went into the ravine past this particular tree this is my re-tee.

The idea you want to assess the lie first is part of the hang up of this argument it seems. throwing then assessing and taking the better throw isn't the request. Its I know this course, I know how that throw looked and if it did X after it went out of site I want to re-tee. If it did Y then I'm not going to re-tee.

It is a pretty rare case to re-tee without a penalty on the first throw, but there are cases.

I've never played it, my only familiarity is from video coverage. That being said, I still think I would want to look at my lie first in the off chance that there was an unexpected window to reach the basket.

 

[sidewinder22]

This seems like a bit of a pointless endeavor. I'm having a hard time of imagining a situation where anyone would opt to take a provisional outside OB/lost disc. Wouldn't you always want to assess the lie and look at the various options available? The only time I can see it actually coming into play would be the casual "it's getting late" situation from the original post. If it's a casual round and "it's getting late" does it really matter what the PDGA manual says? I personally would be ok with someone throwing a provisional, and then just deciding which they wanted to use. That level of flexibility wouldn't be appropriate in a tournament though.

It's sort of like ball golf. If you unexpectedly lose a ball in the rough during a casual round, you don't search for 5 minutes and then walk back to the tee like you're in the US Open and hold up every group behind you. You toss one down in the area you think it should be and play on.

I do think it would be rare, not pointless, as it would be great in situations similar to the OP. Yes, almost always you would rather take a good look at your lie before taking a stroke penalty plus distance. Which is why I don't see how a player would take advantage this type of abandonment provisional, it's basically hedging a bet against yourself, but avoids wasting a lot of time and/or having to hike back up a mountain.

According to the USGA rules: If a ball is lost as a result of not being found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player's side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it, the player must play a ball, under penalty of one stroke, as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5).

 

[DavidSauls]

I do think it would be rare, not pointless, as it would be great in situations similar to the OP. Yes, almost always you would rather take a good look at your lie before taking a stroke penalty plus distance. Which is why I don't see how a player would take advantage this type of abandonment provisional, it's basically hedging a bet against yourself, but avoids wasting a lot of time and/or having to hike back up a mountain.

I agree---if the "abandonment zone" can be so clearly defined that there's no chance for the player to arrive at his drive, and for he or his group to make a decision as to whether it's in that zone, or out. Other than the type of fine-line discussions we sometimes have with a disc right on the OB line. If the "abandonment zone" can be defined specifically enough, like OB is, then it would be hard to gain advantage.

Otherwise, under current rules, for a player arriving at his disc to make that decision, you have to extend Yes, almost always you would rather take a good look at your lie before taking a stroke penalty plus distance. to Yes, almost always you would rather take a good look at your lie before taking a stroke penalty plus distance and risk of another bad throw.

An "abandonment zone" that is not completely clear, with a provisional, takes away that last part. Or the chance of a good throw if the decision on whether the drive is in the "abandonment zone" is in the hands of his opponents.

Any rules change that allowed provisionals for pre-declared "abandonment zones" would have to include a requirement for a very specific description of the zone.

 

[DG_player]

According to the USGA rules: If a ball is lost as a result of not being found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player's side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it, the player must play a ball, under penalty of one stroke, as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5).

I realize the rule is stroke and distance for a lost ball in ball golf, my only point was that what's often viewed as appropriate in certain situations in casual play is not necessarily appropriate to be in the official rules and used in tournament play (take the gimme for example).

As a side note, since we're talking about golf ball rules, here's some food for thought:

In ball golf if you find your ball in-bounds, that ball immediately becomes the ball in play and the provisional is discarded. However if you play the provisional past the expected area of the lost ball, the provisional immediately becomes the ball in play at no additional penalty. There is no explicit requirement you search for the lost ball, so technically, if you like your provisional, you can just walk up and play it.

I'm not sure why they went this route, it seems advantageous to the player (for the reasons clearly described by DavidSaul in his above post so I won't rehash them). Perhaps they assumed that it would be so rare that you would ever choose a provisional without first attempting to find your original shot, it wasn't worth overly complicating the rules.

 

[Jay Dub]

It's completely different than if it was lost. "Lost" is based in fact; the disc can't be found, or couldn't be found within the 3 minute search period. It's a yes-or-no question. There are no options in declaring a disc lost.

And it's completely different from an abandoned lie. In declaring an abandoned lie, the player doesn't know where his replacement shot might go. It could be the same place, or worse.

A player saying "if it's in the woods I'm abandoning it" doesn't work. The rules don't allow for it, and "in the woods" is a vague reference unless the woods are marked. Edge of the woods? A few feet in the woods? 10 feet? 50 feet? Who decides what's "in the woods" enough to meet the conditions, let alone where the woods begin?

Impending darkness, the urgency of speed, does not grant a waiver of rules---marking rules, stance rules, or anything other ones.

Now, if it's casual play, and the group agrees, certainly. We waive all sorts of rules in casual play. But with the acknowledgement that what we're doing is breaking a rule.

I have a discussion going on that applies to what's bolded.

They say if their downhill putt sails into the trees they can take a stroke penalty and putt again from the same spot. Trees are not OB.

I say no that's not what the rule is for.

David's comment here seems to agree with me. Sorry I didn't read the whole thread but am I correct?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I have a discussion going on that applies to what's bolded.

They say if their downhill putt sails into the trees they can take a stroke penalty and putt again from the same spot. Trees are not OB.

I say no that's not what the rule is for.

David's comment here seems to agree with me. Sorry I didn't read the whole thread but am I correct?

You may rethrow from your previous lie with a stroke penalty at all times, regardless of where your throw goes. That is the meaning of the Abandoned Throw rule 809.01.

(In fact, the stroke penalty is unnecessary since re-throwing from the same lie has already cost you a stroke and potentially a disc. Hopefully, the rule is eventually changed to recognize this)

 

[Jay Dub]

You may rethrow from your previous lie with a stroke penalty at all times, regardless of where your throw goes. That is the meaning of the Abandoned Throw rule 809.01.

Thanks for the reply.

I think that's nuts. If I put my throw into the woods I should have to play out from there.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Thanks for the reply.

I think that's nuts. If I put my throw into the woods I should have to play out from there.

My counter is that no player should be penalized more than 1 shot and possibly some distance for any throwing error. Explain why more penalty than that is necessary for fair game play.

 

[BillFleming]

I have a discussion going on that applies to what's bolded.

They say if their downhill putt sails into the trees they can take a stroke penalty and putt again from the same spot. Trees are not OB.

I say no that's not what the rule is for.

David's comment here seems to agree with me. Sorry I didn't read the whole thread but am I correct?

Concerning the part you bolded about an abandoned throw is that the player said "IF" the disc is in the woods. You can't do that. You can throw, see your disc is headed to the trees and say "I'm abandoning that throw and re-throwing with a stroke penalty". But (my understanding is) you can't go find your disc and then choose to abandon it.

 

[biscoe]

My counter is that no player should be penalized more than 1 shot and possibly some distance for any throwing error. Explain why more penalty than that is necessary for fair game play.

A player playing from their lie is not penalized at all regardless how many shots they throw. Your conflation of penalties and actual shots is disingenuous.

 

[Jay Dub]

My counter is that no player should be penalized more than 1 shot and possibly some distance for any throwing error. Explain why more penalty than that is necessary for fair game play.

It's not a penalty, it is where they threw the disc and still in bounds/play.

Yes they should be penalized as many throws as it takes them to get out of the trees. Even if it's 5 (five) throws.

The rule is not how golf works.

 

[krupicka]

Thanks for the reply.

I think that's nuts. If I put my throw into the woods I should have to play out from there.

But if they don't find the disc, they can go back to the previous lie with penalty.... A player should not be penalized for actually finding their disc.

 

[Jay Dub]

But if they don't find the disc, they can go back to the previous lie with penalty.... A player should not be penalized for actually finding their disc.

I agree with this.

What I think is crazy is a player can decide whenever they don't like their throw they can just take another one, with penalty. So that adds only 2 strokes instead of the 4, 5 or 6+ they might deserve at that point.

 

[coupe]

(In fact, the stroke penalty is unnecessary since re-throwing from the same lie has already cost you a stroke and potentially a disc. Hopefully, the rule is eventually changed to recognize this)

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

A fundamental tenet of the Rules is to play the disc where it lies. 800 Description of the Game While the Rules provide exceptions to this for specific obstacles (803.02 A, B), electing to relocate the lie from the position established by the thrown disc for any other reason rightfully incurs a penalty throw for abandoning the previous throw.

Furthermore, by rule, every throw, save for provisional throws, is counted toward the player's total score (802.01.A). The re-throw made from the previous lie DOES NOT "cost you a stroke"; it simply a replacement for the throw that would have been made from the lie resulting from the previous throw had the player not abandoned the throw.

 

[coupe]

A player playing from their lie is not penalized at all regardless how many shots they throw. Your conflation of penalties and actual shots is typical Chuckles' bovine excrement.

FTFY.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Still no fair game play reason why an additional penalty is required. One of the unfortunate historical aspects of our sport has been retaining "golf" in the name (See recently departed Stancil Johnson's #009 remarks on this.) We're so worried about emulating golf and its rules that the sport is losing sight of the "most fun wins" aspect of throwing discs, and in this case, at targets. Ball golf has 1-shot penalties plus sometimes loss of distance for errant shots. The 2-shot penalties or DQ are primarily reserved for doing more deliberate acts.

Historically, even OB was officially the equivalent of a 1-shot penalty where the player marked inbounds where the ball went out like our basic OB penalty. They also tried the OB penalty as simply a re-tee with no added penalty stroke, just counting the errant shot, exactly what I'm proposing. They were reluctantly forced to the current stroke and distance penalty because in one case, the lie might be poor where it went out, and in the other case, the location where the ball went out wasn't known. So, they were forced to penalize both scenarios for consistency, not necessarily because the infraction "deserved" that level of punishment.

There really is no need for compounding penalties. Medal play is basically a gang version of match play, especially when the players you're competing against are around your skill level. One error in match play and you likely lose the hole. Piling on extra strokes doesn't matter. In fact, for ball golf handicap calculations and play, your score is capped. And under their latest rules, the club has the option to cap scores in scratch play events.

Ball golf has finally come around realizing certain rule changes make the game less punitive, faster to play, and more fun to play. They want to encourage participation in an environment where more courses were failing at least before Covid. Disc golf has been going backwards in this regard with "fear of Par 2s" as one factor underlying recent permanent and temp course design efforts with more OB areas, lost discs and the perception that much longer courses are required, thus making the game less enjoyable for those already playing it and reducing the size of the market who have the ability and willingness to play this evolving, punitive format.

Note that we have few pay-for-play courses that are financially successful on their own without subsidization by not-for-profit institutions or passion projects of private course owners who don't generate enough income to justify "paying" themselves. Our Mulligan and funky Putting league formats have produced significant participation increases over conventional format leagues with more scoring opportunities and less disappointment. That should be the direction of our game.

 

[Rastnav]

Still no fair game play reason why an additional penalty is required. One of the unfortunate historical aspects of our sport has been retaining "golf" in the name (See recently departed Stancil Johnson's #009 remarks on this.) We're so worried about emulating golf and its rules that the sport is losing sight of the "most fun wins" aspect of throwing discs, and in this case, at targets. Ball golf has 1-shot penalties plus sometimes loss of distance for errant shots. The 2-shot penalties or DQ are primarily reserved for doing more deliberate acts.

Historically, even OB was officially the equivalent of a 1-shot penalty where the player marked inbounds where the ball went out like our basic OB penalty. They also tried the OB penalty as simply a re-tee with no added penalty stroke, just counting the errant shot, exactly what I'm proposing. They were reluctantly forced to the current stroke and distance penalty because in one case, the lie might be poor where it went out, and in the other case, the location where the ball went out wasn't known. So, they were forced to penalize both scenarios for consistency, not necessarily because the infraction "deserved" that level of punishment.

There really is no need for compounding penalties. Medal play is basically a gang version of match play, especially when the players you're competing against are around your skill level. One error in match play and you likely lose the hole. Piling on extra strokes doesn't matter. In fact, for ball golf handicap calculations and play, your score is capped. And under their latest rules, the club has the option to cap scores in scratch play events.

Ball golf has finally come around realizing certain rule changes make the game less punitive, faster to play, and more fun to play. They want to encourage participation in an environment where more courses were failing at least before Covid. Disc golf has been going backwards in this regard with "fear of Par 2s" as one factor underlying recent permanent and temp course design efforts with more OB areas, lost discs and the perception that much longer courses are required, thus making the game less enjoyable for those already playing it and reducing the size of the market who have the ability and willingness to play this evolving, punitive format.

Note that we have few pay-for-play courses that are financially successful on their own without subsidization by not-for-profit institutions or passion projects of private course owners who don't generate enough income to justify "paying" themselves. Our Mulligan and funky Putting league formats have produced significant participation increases over conventional format leagues with more scoring opportunities and less disappointment. That should be the direction of our game.

I agree that a primary reason to allow abandoning an existing lie is that it should never be worse to find your disc than to lose it. I also agree that the rules should encourage enjoyment in play. It's not an exercise in masochism (and remember, masochists enjoy it!)

That said, some minor notes on ball golf. Ball golf is less penal than disc golf in regards to the rules around abandoning an existing lie. In ball golf, you can always declare a lie "unplayable". One option is then to take a stroke penalty and play from the previous lie (same as disc golf), a second option is to drop within a club length no closer to the hole, a third option is to go back on the line of play as far as you want. Disc golf is, in some sense, far more penal than ball golf in this manner, but that's because ball golf can't really be played from within the underbrush. They just aren't comparable in that regard.

The very similar progression of play in both sports simply means that many of the rules are going to echo each other. It's not a mistake to look at ball golf to understand how a more mature sport handles a similar issue, but that never means that their way is "right". It's merely potentially useful. At the end of the day, they are two separate sports.

I agree that the move toward streamlining rules in ball golf to improve pace of play and enjoyment while eliminating somewhat arbitrary penalties is useful to know about. It's something to keep in mind, but I don't think many/any of the specific adaptations and rule changes really apply to disc golf.