SPOILER(?) - foot fault & hazard penalty, Santa Cruz Masters Cup

[cheesethin]

So just looking for clarity really....

Ricky's tee-shot on hole 15 Final Round incurred two penalty strokes. One for the stance violation (foot-fault) AND one for the disc landing in the bunker hazard.

But the rules also talk about a single throw or action not getting penalized twice:

801.02 Enforcement H. A throw or an action that is subject to penalty under more than one rule is played
under the rule that results in the most penalty throws; or, among rules that call
for an equal number of penalty throws, the rule that was first violated.

QA-APP-1
Is there a priority order for which
violation should count if more than
one rule applies?
Yes. The violation with the most severe
penalty is applied. Ties are broken by
what happened first. A single throw
cannot be penalized for more than one
violation.

On reading through the rules it seems unclear as to when penalties stack up, and when they don't. Something like incorrectly recording your score on a hole is obviously a separate action from whether you went OB on a particular throw on that hole.

But in this scenario could it be argued that the stance violation and landing in the hazard area are all part of 'a throw', and therefore only one stroke should be added. I don't actually think the call was wrong, it feels right to penalize both the stance violation and the hazard area landing. But I want to check that I haven't missed something in the rules that makes this explicit. Am I right that the rules are lacking in clarity on this?

 

[robdeforge]

I was wondering the same thing...

https://www.pdga.com/faq/out-bounds#t5601n237906

QA-OB-6: A player in my group foot-faulted and was called on it (and seconded). His throw went OB. Does he get a warning, a penalty, or two penalties?
A player's first stance violation results in a penalty throw. In this case, there were multiple violations. Normally, the first violation to occur is the one that counts. In this case, that's the foot fault (though it doesn't really matter as it's one penalty throw either way). There's no re-throw, so the disc is played as OB. Since a player cannot receive penalty throws for multiple violations on a single throw, there's just one penalty throw.

 

[Halcón]

Another day, another Wysocki foot fault.

 

[cheesethin]

I was wondering the same thing...

https://www.pdga.com/faq/out-bounds#t5601n237906

Gosh. That seems to pretty clearly show that the call was wrong. Unless there were special tournament rules in place.

 

[cheesethin]

From the PDGA website News section.

https://www.pdga.com/news/wysocki-wins-another-masters-cup-roller-coaster-ride

As it turns out, this ruling was applied incorrectly. Per the PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf Question and Answer section OB6, a player cannot receive more than one penalty stroke on a single throw. Wysocki should have only been assessed one penalty for either the foot fault or the hazard, which would have resulted in an incorrect scorecard at the end of play. Since this error was not caught until the event was completed, though, rule 808.G.1 applies and no more penalty strokes may be assessed. Wysocki won by two strokes, and even if he were to have the penalty for a scoring error added he still would have been victorious by a single stroke.

 

[DG_player]

From the PDGA website News section.

https://www.pdga.com/news/wysocki-wins-another-masters-cup-roller-coaster-ride

I'm amazed top pros don't know the rules better. Although I think in this case it's somewhat understandable since the rule seems a little illogical and counter-intuitive.

 

[_MTL_]

I'm amazed top pros don't know the rules better. Although I think in this case it's somewhat understandable since the rule seems a little illogical and counter-intuitive.

It's ok not to know the ruling in an usual and admittedly confusing situation, like this one. It's another to be so completely clueless about the rules to even recognize that something doesn't quite seem right and to ask the TD at the end of the round the proper score.

Top pros lack of knowledge of rules is comical. Imagine going to your boss and saying that you don't know the regulations of your job and see their reaction.

 

[_MTL_]

Also in the article:

"I never witnessed it – I've gotta pay attention more," (Anthon) admitted.

You just admitted to a courtesy violation.

 

[joecoin]

Also in the article:

"I never witnessed it – I've gotta pay attention more," (Anthon) admitted.

You just admitted to a courtesy violation.

Should we tell his probation officer?

 

[cheesethin]

it feels right to penalize both the stance violation and the hazard area landing.

So I think I'll stand by my earlier statement that foot faults should be treated separately from regulated area/route/position faults - both penalties should count.

It makes sense to me that regulated area/route/position faults are lumped in together as one 'class' of fault, and that you should only incur one penalty per throw for transgressing any of them. You make one 'error' by shanking your shot - you incur one penalty, even if you miss the mando AND go OB AND can't find you disc. It is still just as a result of one error - shanking your shot.

But a foot-fault/stance violation strikes me as a separate kind of thing. In the Wysocki incident, him stepping over the tee-pad front line didn't really play any significant part in the shot landing in the hazard. I'd say a player doing this has made two 'errors', one, not placing their feet correctly & two, throwing the shot poorly.

(A possible exception to this is slipping on the tee-pad/run-up. That could cause you to foot fault and misthrow.)

 

[_MTL_]

So I think I'll stand by my earlier statement that foot faults should be treated separately from regulated area/route/position faults - both penalties should count.

It makes sense to me that regulated area/route/position faults are lumped in together as one 'class' of fault, and that you should only incur one penalty per throw for transgressing any of them. You make one 'error' by shanking your shot - you incur one penalty, even if you miss the mando AND go OB AND can't find you disc. It is still just as a result of one error - shanking your shot.

But a foot-fault/stance violation strikes me as a separate kind of thing. In the Wysocki incident, him stepping over the tee-pad front line didn't really play any significant part in the shot landing in the hazard. I'd say a player doing this has made two 'errors', one, not placing their feet correctly & two, throwing the shot poorly.

(A possible exception to this is slipping on the tee-pad/run-up. That could cause you to foot fault and misthrow.)

I get your argument, but the rules pretty clearly say this is wrong:

https://www.pdga.com/faq/rules/qa-o...and-was-called-it-and-seconded-his-throw-went

 

[cheesethin]

I get your argument, but the rules pretty clearly say this is wrong:

https://www.pdga.com/faq/rules/qa-o...and-was-called-it-and-seconded-his-throw-went

Yes, I'm not arguing what the rule say. I'm offering up a possible rule change for discussion

 

[Mocheez]

This exact situation was posed as a question in the certified rules official exam... it was the only question I got wrong.

 

[cheesethin]

I get your argument, but the rules pretty clearly say this is wrong:

I'll argue the bit in bold though!

 

[coopera]

So how *should* this have been played?

I would hazard to guess from my reading that Ricky should have incurred a one throw penalty for the foot fault, then played from the hazard with no penalty.

That doesn't seem right intuitively, but it's all I can come up with.

 

[JC17393]

So how *should* this have been played?

I would hazard to guess from my reading that Ricky should have incurred a one throw penalty for the foot fault, then played from the hazard with no penalty.

That doesn't seem right intuitively, but it's all I can come up with.

That's correct. Per 801.02.H: "A throw or an action that is subject to penalty under more than one rule is played under the rule that results in the most penalty throws; or, among rules that call for an equal number of penalty throws, the rule that was first violated."

Since the foot fault came first sequentially, it is the penalty that is assigned. Though in this case, does it really matter which violation is "credited" for the penalty? The essence of the rule is that you don't get double penalized on the same throw. Sequencing of violations really only matters when the next lie is at stake. Like if a disc misses a mando and lands OB...which happened first determines where the player plays his next throw from...drop zone or re-tee for the mando, or last in-bounds (or drop zone or re-tee) for the OB.

 

[JoakimBL]

I'm positively surprised that the RC actually realized this potential problem with removing the rethrow from the stance violation. However it does seem like you are "getting away" free with your stance violation or OB/hazard throw. Maybe the reasoning is that since you landed OB/in a hazard, you clearly didn't get an advantage out of you foot fault, but that is also the reasoning most people use for not calling the foot fault in the first place, and really shouldn't bee a deciding factor for if a penalty is applied or not. Also, if you had to rethrow, you still might end up OB/in a hazard on your rethrow, and would deserve to get two penalties

 

[rhatton1]

Also in the article:

"I never witnessed it – I've gotta pay attention more," (Anthon) admitted.

You just admitted to a courtesy violation.

On this point could we start calling everyone that turns their backs on the person putting, (Philo was doing it throughout this video) another one of my many pet peeves and unless they have a big screen/eyes in the back of their heads a clear courtesy violation. WATCH MY PUTT!!!!

 

[robdeforge]

I'm positively surprised that the RC actually realized this potential problem with removing the rethrow from the stance violation. However it does seem like you are "getting away" free with your stance violation or OB/hazard throw. Maybe the reasoning is that since you landed OB/in a hazard, you clearly didn't get an advantage out of you foot fault, but that is also the reasoning most people use for not calling the foot fault in the first place, and really shouldn't bee a deciding factor for if a penalty is applied or not. Also, if you had to rethrow, you still might end up OB/in a hazard on your rethrow, and would deserve to get two penalties

you're only "getting away" with one if you specifically plan to do one or the other ahead of time. as in, you say to yourself "i know i'm going to throw into the hazard, so i might as well foot fault too". and if you did it so obviously that your cardmates knew you foot faulted on purpose you're opening yourself up to disqualification.

the thing is, this isn't some newfangled complicated rule thing. it's been a thing ever since i started paying attention to rules in disc golf (2013). here's a Q&A from that rulebook:
QA 33: Penalty Rule Priorities
Q: Is there a priority order for which penalty rule should be applied if more than one applies?
A: Yes. The violation with the most severe penalty is applied. Ties are broken by what happened first. A single throw cannot be penalized for more than one violation.

 

[Steve West]

On this point could we start calling everyone that turns their backs on the person putting, ...

We just need to call one top pro on it in one video.