Q about “arrive at and determine the lie”

[Rastnav]

Thanks for finding that.

It is not a group decision. I used "group" a little loosely to mean one or two players in the group. My bad.

Excess Time is a rules violation that falls under D. and E. below.

Ok, I see what you mean. Especially for the warning

However, for a penalty to apply, it would still mean that the card has to somehow determine that "a reasonable amount of time" had passed before any timing started. At the end of the day, all that really means in practice is that another player on the card votes to confirm the call. But it is interesting in its implications, especially if the other players on the card aren't actually aware of when the timer started.

 

[rhatton1]

Check the pdga rules faq. You'll see where I got it.

I don't see it, can you link to the one you are talking about?

 

[Steve West]

Ok, I see what you mean. Especially for the warning

However, for a penalty to apply, it would still mean that the card has to somehow determine that "a reasonable amount of time" had passed before any timing started. At the end of the day, all that really means in practice is that another player on the card votes to confirm the call. But it is interesting in its implications, especially if the other players on the card aren't actually aware of when the timer started.

Just two players (on the card) need to believe the thrower was clearly too slow. This is not like a rules dispute where the majority rules. If there are five on a card, and three don't agree with the call, but two agree, the penalty is imposed.

There might be discussion before that happens, and there might be an appeal after, but called-and-confirmed is all that is needed to impose a penalty for a violation.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

So for further fun but I'm pretty sure this isn't much of an "angle" but:

802.01 C. "For a throw that is disregarded, any penalty throws associated with making that throw are also disregarded. Penalties that are associated with making a throw are those for: out-of-bounds, hazard, missed mandatory, above two meters, stance, marking, taking improper relief, and lost disc."

Obviously the excessive time isn't mentioned specifically...but it says "any penalty" ...

What if someone threw OB, was docked excessive time and abandoned the throw, going back to the pad.. would that only result in one penalty stroke? What if they foot faulted as well as excessive time and had to rethrow?

 

[Rastnav]

Just two players (on the card) need to believe the thrower was clearly too slow. This is not like a rules dispute where the majority rules. If there are five on a card, and three don't agree with the call, but two agree, the penalty is imposed.

There might be discussion before that happens, and there might be an appeal after, but called-and-confirmed is all that is needed to impose a penalty for a violation.

Yes, I thought I corrected my wording to indicate that only one other player had to confirm the call, but apparently I must have missed the edit window.

Regardless, that still means that, theoretically, the two people have to be in agreement about when the timer should start. If I decide on my own when to start a timer, and then say that 30 seconds have elapsed from the time the lie was reached and show my phone screen, the other people on the card don't necessarily know when I started it. There is no easily identifiable point when I should have started the timer.

This only speaks to the ambiguity about the timing, that there is no hard and fast rule that determines when the clock starts running. It is certainly possible for people on the card to be in good faith agreement that a time violation has occurred.

 

[Rastnav]

So for further fun but I'm pretty sure this isn't much of an "angle" but:

802.01 C. "For a throw that is disregarded, any penalty throws associated with making that throw are also disregarded. Penalties that are associated with making a throw are those for: out-of-bounds, hazard, missed mandatory, above two meters, stance, marking, taking improper relief, and lost disc."

Obviously the excessive time isn't mentioned specifically...but it says "any penalty" ...

What if someone threw OB, was docked excessive time and abandoned the throw, going back to the pad.. would that only result in one penalty stroke? What if they foot faulted as well as excessive time and had to rethrow?

It says "any penalty throws associated with making that throw" and then names those penalties specifically. This is similar to what I was unsure about earlier when I was talking about taking optional relief and not being subject to two penalties on the same throw. It seems from this list that excessive time, much like a courtesy violation, isn't actually a penalty associated with a throw. You wouldn't have to wait until someone threw to call them for time, they would have already committed a penalty.

Other penalties that seem to happen before the throw, like improper relief or mis-marking, are all actually correctable so long as they are done before you throw. You can back to your correct lie, but you can't go back in time.

 

[Steve West]

Yes, I thought I corrected my wording to indicate that only one other player had to confirm the call, but apparently I must have missed the edit window.

Regardless, that still means that, theoretically, the two people have to be in agreement about when the timer should start. If I decide on my own when to start a timer, and then say that 30 seconds have elapsed from the time the lie was reached and show my phone screen, the other people on the card don't necessarily know when I started it. There is no easily identifiable point when I should have started the timer.

This only speaks to the ambiguity about the timing, that there is no hard and fast rule that determines when the clock starts running. It is certainly possible for people on the card to be in good faith agreement that a time violation has occurred.

Reliance on judgement is not the same as ambiguity.

As you point out, the two players do not need to agree on exactly how much extra time was taken, just that too much time was clearly taken.

 

[Rastnav]

Reliance on judgement is not the same as ambiguity.

As you point out, the two players do not need to agree on exactly how much extra time was taken, just that too much time was clearly taken.

Again, my point is not "it's impossible to say if a player has taken too much time". I am also not saying "a call of excessive time will always be ambiguous".

Stating this positively, there are situations where the call of excessive time is unambiguous.

However, there is no clear, bright line separating "legal" from "too much time". The line between the two is ambiguous.

I have seen, both recently and in the past, numerous statements like "Everyone has only 30 seconds to throw. Period." You further see people calling for cards to vigorously enforce this supposed bright line. IMO, this misinderstands the nature of the rule and, I believe, the intent as well.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

I appreciate the intent of the excessive time rule. I do not think the "reasonable amount of time..." ambiguity goes well with a 30 second defined time to throw. It will largely be judgemental enforcement by the card.

I worry that the high profile recent events will cause this to become an unnecessary annoyance in my favourite sport arguing with some idiot about when he started the clock.

I worry that: People will understand a small figment of the rule using exactly 30 seconds, carrying out the rule as an absolute for competitive advantage (penalties) but not necessarily with the original intent towards fair play and sportsmanship.

I do also feel like the European open incident was a targeted and planned sting operation. I'm not saying it was unwarranted.. The last hole penalty (psych out) shouldn't affect the play/score too much, I thought that was a reasonable classy attempt to not make it hurt too much but it did some major damage.

Has there been any other excessive time penalties called in a tourney?

 

[Rastnav]

Has there been any other excessive time penalties called in a tourney?

Gannon Burr was called at DGPT Chamionship last year by Drew Gibson, but I can't remember if it was a warning or a penalty. I believe he received warnings from officials on other days as well.

 

[txmxer]

Gannon Burr was called at DGPT Chamionship last year by Drew Gibson, but I can't remember if it was a warning or a penalty. I believe he received warnings from officials on other days as well.

pretty sure those were warnings.

 

[Jolt]

"During" means that the clock runs while the playing area is clear. Or, to put it another way, if the playing area is not clear the clock freezes. It does not reset. When the crowd moves out of the way, you get whatever remains of your 30 seconds.

Was it in the European open a member of the crowd started to walk across the fairway just as a player was about to throw. . The player could have been called on time then? i think he took about 20sec before and another 20sec after the fairway was clear.

 

[Steve West]

Was it in the European open a member of the crowd started to walk across the fairway just as a player was about to throw. . The player could have been called on time then? i think he took about 20sec before and another 20sec after the fairway was clear.

Actually, I don't think the player could have been called for a 30 second violation in that case. (Yes, this is a change to what I said before.)

During which the playing area is clear.

isn't explicit that they only get a total of 30 seconds, so we need to read it as giving them a full, clear, continuous 30 seconds.

However, that doesn't mean they are free to waste another 29 seconds for no reason. The rule from the Competition Manual

3.02 Pace of Play A. All competitors shall play without undue delay[...]

is still in effect.

A player who was ready to throw before the playing area become unclear should still be almost ready to throw after it re-clears. If they were to say "I'm ready, but I'm going to use my new 30 seconds to post a selfie first.", I'd call them for undue delay. But that wouldn't be under the 30 second rule.

In this case, since they took 20 seconds before, then yeah, maybe they need the same 20 seconds after. No call.

 

[robdeforge]

It's my understanding that the above is not true. You can place a disc back behind the marker disc as you wish.

out of curiosity, are you aware of something in the rules that states that you are allowed to do this? or are you surmising that it is true because it is not specifically disallowed? (not disagreeing with you just curious as to your reasoning!)

 

[Rastnav]

out of curiosity, are you aware of something in the rules that states that you are allowed to do this? or are you surmising that it is true because it is not specifically disallowed? (not disagreeing with you just curious as to your reasoning!)

First, I am going to turn this back around on you and ask you the inverse question, why do you believe replacing the thrown disc is not allowed? What can you point to in the rules that says this? Is there some general reason why you think it is illegal? I have a good idea why you think this, but I'd like to hear what you have to say first.

To the best of my recollection, I first came across the idea that this was allowed in watching tournament coverage. I believe I have seen players do it, and I am pretty sure I've heard commentators reference the idea. But, I can't point to any specific video.

I also seem to recall it being mentioned multiple times here by those who should know, perhaps by krupicka, but maybe by someone else that I thought I could trust to be correct on this issue. But again, I can't point to a specific comment.

But, the basic idea does arise out of multiple situations where it's clear that you can create your lie multiple times and everything is fine so long as the lie you create is legal. For instance, if drop a marker for your disc and decide it is not in the right place, you simply place it again in the right spot. If you had gone OB and dropped your marker disc in a legal place, but not the place you actually intended, you could move it wherever you wanted along the legal arc created by the rule instantiated this year. If you were taking optional relief and dropped your marker, but then decided to move it to some other point along the line of play, you would be entitled to do so. If you decided to rethrow, you could recreate your original lie as best as possible subject to challenge by the card.

The only mandate in the rules is that your marker be in a legal spot when you execute your throw. When marking your lie in accordance with the rules, you are entitled to place it precisely as you wish in any legal location. The range of legal locations is determined by where your disc comes to rest, but this doesn't mean that when taking the opportunity to mark you give up the right to move the mark to some other location that was legally determined by the position your disc came to rest in.

 

[robdeforge]

First, I am going to turn this back around on you and ask you the inverse question, why do you believe replacing the thrown disc is not allowed?

why do you think I believe this?

 

[Steve West]

At one point, there was a QA which said the thrown disc could not be put back and used as the marker after a mini had been placed. That QA was removed.

 

[txmxer]

Actually, I don't think the player could have been called for a 30 second violation in that case. (Yes, this is a change to what I said before.)

isn't explicit that they only get a total of 30 seconds, so we need to read it as giving them a full, clear, continuous 30 seconds.

However, that doesn't mean they are free to waste another 29 seconds for no reason. The rule from the Competition Manual is still in effect.

A player who was ready to throw before the playing area become unclear should still be almost ready to throw after it re-clears. If they were to say "I'm ready, but I'm going to use my new 30 seconds to post a selfie first.", I'd call them for undue delay. But that wouldn't be under the 30 second rule.

In this case, since they took 20 seconds before, then yeah, maybe they need the same 20 seconds after. No call.

I think I agree with what you actually said. If something like a person crossing the fairway occurs, it's basically a reset. Sure, they should have the correct disc selection made, but it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to stand at the ready to the throw the moment the fairway is clear.

 

[robdeforge]

I think I agree with what you actually said. If something like a person crossing the fairway occurs, it's basically a reset. Sure, they should have the correct disc selection made, but it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to stand at the ready to the throw the moment the fairway is clear.

afaik this interpretation is not supported by the rules as currently written

 

[Rastnav]

why do you think I believe this?

Sorry, I had though that either in this thread or some other thread you had stated you didn't believe you could do this, that once you had marked the location of the thrown disc and picked it up you couldn't go back.

But I may have misinterpreted something or confused you with someone else.