Rules Changes for 2018

[krupicka]

The clarification from the RC that is if you foot fault when going OB: one throw penalty, take lie according to the OB rules.

 

[biscoe]

The clarification from the RC that is if you foot fault when going OB: one throw penalty, take lie according to the OB rules.

So 3 is the score in the scenario above.

Steve West- you have to be reading this stuff and you are on the committee. what's the rationale for no re-throw on a foot faulted shot?

 

[KniceZ]

I'm confused about the scenario:
Is it -
Player A throws from the tee and footfaults, he is called and it is seconded.
Player A's rethrow from the tee due to footfault and goes OB.
He makes his putt from his meters relief.
or -
Player A throws from the tee, footfaults and goes OB, he is called and it is seconded.
He makes his putt from his meters relief.

Splitting the scenario into separate lines made me interpret as the 1st case. In which case it would be 5 (tee + fault) + (retee+OB) + putt

 

[Horsman]

One centimeter is .3937 inches.

Agreed, but according to the PDGA 1 centimeter is .5 inches

 

[krupicka]

I'm confused about the scenario:
Is it -
Player A throws from the tee and footfaults, he is called and it is seconded.
Player A's rethrow from the tee due to footfault and goes OB.
He makes his putt from his meters relief.
or -
Player A throws from the tee, footfaults and goes OB, he is called and it is seconded.
He makes his putt from his meters relief.

Splitting the scenario into separate lines made me interpret as the 1st case. In which case it would be 5 (tee + fault) + (retee+OB) + putt

There is no rethrow on a foot fault in 2018.

 

[markmcc]

Agreed, but according to the PDGA 1 centimeter is .5 inches

Clearly it would have been better if they'd said that 1 cm = 25/64 inches. Much more intuitive...

 

[lyleoross]

Agreed, but according to the PDGA 1 centimeter is .5 inches

That may be, but the numbers they give are closer to .39 something, than .5. So they used .5 in their definition but .39 in their calculations. As I read it.

Sorry for misreading the intent of your post though.

 

[stratedge]

It says horizontally hanging.. What if its on the outside of the basket, on the nubs, hanging vertically.. Like AJ Risley's putt on hole 6 at USDGC.

The way I read it, a normal "nubby-hanger" is still not good (aka, not holed out). The disc has to enter the target correctly AND be supported by the target. If it doesn't enter, just hangs on the nubs, it hasn't met both conditions.

AJ's was something I hadn't seen before. His putt actually hit the chains, then bounced out and hung on the nubs, so it would be good.

807-B says the disc must "enter the target above the top of the tray and below the bottom
of the chain support". So basically what this is saying as I read it, is that if it breaks a cylindrical plane between the top of the basket and the top of the chain support (the band), it has entered the basket. Now all it has to do is come to rest on the entirety of the target.

It doesn't say all of it, so even a tiny edge of the disc partly breaking this plane counts.

In my very limited experience, both video and real life, all nubby hangers at least partially break this plane. It would be an incredible feat to get a nubby hanger and not break the plane of the basket to chain support, aka "enter the target" as per the rules. So all nubby hangers would count, realistically.

I think it would still count based on the way the rules are written. That might not have been their intention, but it appears to be the way it is written.

Based on my interpretation, as long as your disc enters the basket correctly and ends up supported by the basket in any way, you have completed the hole.

I know they wanted to simplify the rules, but they are still ambiguous. For one thing, it doesn't say the disc has to come to rest supported entirely by the target. You could argue that a disc that is leaning against the pole is supported by the target.

I don't know... that's a stretch for me, but if we're lawyering it up I'd say you're right. That's the real error in verbiage here; if the disc passes through the target, and then winds up leaning against the pole, by the strictest literal interpretation of the rules that would count. I would also say that probably wasn't intentional.

The rules also don't cover what happens if the disc leaves the basket above the top of the tray and below the bottom of the chain support. I assume this is to cover the nubs situation, but based on the way the rules are written, I think you could argue that you could complete a hole with a putt that blows through the chains and either ends up leaning against the pole or sitting on top of the basket.

I think ending up on top of the basket is something you'd only see when playing in gale force winds, but I could see a lot of splash outs leaning against the pole after a funky roll, and I'd be inclined to count them given this wording of this rule.

That would count now, 100%. It met all the requirements: entered the target (check), came to rest on the target (check).

What's missing here is it doesn't say it has to still be "within" the target, where it has come to rest. This puts nubbies and on top of the basket into play.

 

[lyleoross]

So 3 is the score in the scenario above.

Steve West- you have to be reading this stuff and you are on the committee. what's the rationale for no re-throw on a foot faulted shot?

Wait, Steve's on the rules committee? Doesn't that make him evil, by definition?

 

[rhatton1]

I thought the par thread had already confirmed that

 

[lyleoross]

So 3 is the score in the scenario above.

Steve West- you have to be reading this stuff and you are on the committee. what's the rationale for no re-throw on a foot faulted shot?

Wait, Steve's on the rule committee? Doesn't that make him evil, by definition?

 

[biscoe]

Wait, Steve's on the rules committee? Doesn't that make him evil, by definition?

your input is invaluable as always...

 

[robdeforge]

Culturally, we've changed over the past thirty years. Cheating was considered bad and to be avoided thirty years ago. Now, it's just another way to get ahead. Our politics and business is rife with it. People don't look at such things and say, "whoop, if you cheat you're done.". Now, well people cheat, you need something that says you can't do that thing... Saying don't cheat isn't good enough.

So much this. I think there is also a lot of just not knowing the really basic rules in our sport. I know somebody who has played for multiple years in big tournaments, is rated over 950 and climbing, and yet didn't know what the lie was until I asked him if he knew that he foot faulted on a made putt. And got mad at me for pointing it out, tried to argue with me about the rule, and then justified it by saying that nobody else had called him out on it until then. To me, that represents that other forces are at play too

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

Best rule ever is 811-F-9

"Wrong Starting Hole or Group. The player has begun play on a hole or in a group other than the one to which they were assigned. The player continues play, and two throws are added to the player's score for the first hole played."

You can play with whatever group you want for a 2 stroke penalty

Hell yeah. I go out to a bar for lunch, takes too damn long for my burger, I know I'm bottom card of advanced so I order another beer, I show up at the course just as I hear "two minutes" Fk - bottom card of advanced starts way the F out there. Lead card of open starts here on hole one, hey guys, I guess I'm playing with you today. 2 throw penalty vs par plus 4.

 

[_MTL_]

To play devi'ls advocate, there is a difference between cheating and breaking a rule. Cheating requires intent.

 

[sidewinder22]

If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying.

opcorn:

 

[lyleoross]

To play devi'ls advocate, there is a difference between cheating and breaking a rule. Cheating requires intent.

I think it's a good point. I'd argue that we now treat cheating as if you've broken a rule. And if you broke a rule accidentally, that's okay, no intent, no foul, you shouldn't be punished.

 

[_MTL_]

I think it's a good point. I'd argue that we now treat cheating as if you've broken a rule. And if you broke a rule accidentally, that's okay, no intent, no foul, you shouldn't be punished.

agreed. I just think that it was a good time to point that there is a difference between the two.

 

[lyleoross]

agreed. I just think that it was a good time to point that there is a difference between the two.

I think you're right too, wish I had thought of it.

 

[lyleoross]

An interesting point. The FIFA rules provide for intent. In fact there are three levels, accident, low intent, intent to harm. That isn't how it's written but how it plays out. But even with those distinctions, only accident and intent to harm are taken seriously. If you reach for the ball and foul accidentally, you get called. If you block a player or grab him, typically it's given a pass.

Strange.