Throwing at another card during round

[Jukeshoe]

So we've devolved from throwing on the card in front of you, to throwing on the card behind you?

Not the progress I was hoping for. :\

Should've been a knife fight, for realz...:\

 

[dmoore1998]

You are rather needlessly sticking to some very pedantic guns, here.

By the logic you are using, if I asked you if you were going to be on a Space X flight to orbit sometime in the next year, you could truthfully answer that you might be. There is a non-zero chance. It's technically possible.

The word "might" in the wording of the rule is not being used in a way that is consistent with formal logic. Rather, it is being used to show that it's not merely the intention of the thrower, where they are attempting throw the shot, or what they expect will happen that matters. The thrower is also to take into account those things which are unlikely, but are reasonably foreseeable.

If you throw, and hit someone, and can correctly say to yourself "I should have known that might happen", then you threw in violation of the rule.

Now, you could ask whether the rule makes sense in the context of events with spectators that are in the field of play, and that would be a reasonable objection to the specific wording of the rule, but that isn't the conversation we are having.

Not just spectators, spotters, who are likely to always be in the field of play in every event i've seen spotters used.

 

[dmoore1998]

Oh, no doubt.

Some players should never throw when anyone is within 200 feet from 8 o'clock to 4 o'clock. That doesn't mean it is illegal for all other players to throw when anyone is within 550 feet in any direction.

Every player (at least by the time they get to tournaments) should be aware of how far and how badly they might throw. And if they aren't, their group will quickly figure it out. Their group should stop them if there is anyone in the strike zone. This rule gives the group the tool they need to stop the throw.

The "might" in the rule also gives the thrower an unarguable reason to wait, where "probably" or "likely" could be debated. No player should face the choice of throwing when it's not likely the throw will hurt someone, because they are afraid they'll get an excessive time penalty if they don't.

There was an event this year, a big one (like a national professional tour), where the 2nd hole was an elevated teebox. The hole played facing directly back at the first tee, with an intention that the hole was a dogleg (the first tee box was struck with an OB line a bit in front of it). There was not a professional player teeing off on hole #2 who didn't have a shot at hitting someone playing hole #1, or of hitting someone standing along the parking lot watching. Nearly everyone aimed directly at the teepad, playing a fade to the left.

Do you honestly think that the first group to tee off should have just stood on the 2nd teepad all day long saying "not safe, might hit someone"? I saw some shots come super close to people playing the hole...people yelled "fore", people playing the hole had their eyes up and on the people throwing, etc. "Might" makes no sense, I'm not sure "unlikely" even makes sense there...it was a reasonable risk and folks were acting reasonably to mitigate it.

 

[dmoore1998]

I should also be clear, if you make up a game in your backyard, and use the wrong word...I don't care. I won't argue with you about it. You can clarify what you meant, etc. No big deal at all. As someone who writes legally binding contracts, I definitely care more deeply about the meaning of word choice than most. My problem is specifically that the PDGA writes rules like they're a 12 year old making up game rules on a playground, rather than an actual professional sports association hoping to be taken seriously at some point.

I expect to see these kinds of rules written by a local club run by volunteers who are hoping to just get the general gist across...not from a massive organization using these rules to award hefty sums of money annually to competitors. It's an embarrassment when an organization this size has to write rules just for members to argue (correctly argue by folks in this thread) that "it's not what they meant, they were using the word they chose in a different way than what it actually means". That's what makes it a bad rule...that pretty much everyone simply ignores the actual rule and chooses to act reasonably instead.

 

[robdeforge]

There was an event this year, a big one (like a national professional tour), where the 2nd hole was an elevated teebox. The hole played facing directly back at the first tee, with an intention that the hole was a dogleg (the first tee box was struck with an OB line a bit in front of it)..

which event was this? curious to see the situation you're describing

 

[dmoore1998]

which event was this? curious to see the situation you're describing

Des Moines Challenge

 

[Rastnav]

Not just spectators, spotters, who are likely to always be in the field of play in every event i've seen spotters used.

Spotters can be reasonably expected to be spotting, fully aware of the flight of the disc. They are positioned in a place where they are reasonably expected to be able to see, react to, and avoid discs which are heading to their location.

The fact that you mention "legally binding contracts" in another comment shows just how much you are abusing the proper interpretation of rules, which are not written in the same manner, and with the same expectations, as legally binding contracts.

 

[Steve West]

There was an event this year, a big one (like a national professional tour), where the 2nd hole was an elevated teebox. The hole played facing directly back at the first tee, with an intention that the hole was a dogleg (the first tee box was struck with an OB line a bit in front of it). There was not a professional player teeing off on hole #2 who didn't have a shot at hitting someone playing hole #1, or of hitting someone standing along the parking lot watching. Nearly everyone aimed directly at the teepad, playing a fade to the left.

Do you honestly think that the first group to tee off should have just stood on the 2nd teepad all day long saying "not safe, might hit someone"? I saw some shots come super close to people playing the hole...people yelled "fore", people playing the hole had their eyes up and on the people throwing, etc. "Might" makes no sense, I'm not sure "unlikely" even makes sense there...it was a reasonable risk and folks were acting reasonably to mitigate it.

Since we're being picky, the rule doesn't say "might hit", it says "might injure". I think there is a real difference between those two.

If anyone was standing on the teepdad saying "not safe, might injure someone", they would have been justified in doing so. The people playing #1 or standing along the parking lot could have been moved.

In your other post, you got near to some truths. I'm still waiting to hear a better way to word the rule. Do you have a draft of the whole rule?

 

[dmoore1998]

Spotters can be reasonably expected to be spotting, fully aware of the flight of the disc. They are positioned in a place where they are reasonably expected to be able to see, react to, and avoid discs which are heading to their location.

The fact that you mention "legally binding contracts" in another comment shows just how much you are abusing the proper interpretation of rules, which are not written in the same manner, and with the same expectations, as legally binding contracts.

For a professional sport, they should be. They should be specific, and they should mean what they actually say.

 

[dmoore1998]

Since we're being picky, the rule doesn't say "might hit", it says "might injure". I think there is a real difference between those two.

If anyone was standing on the teepdad saying "not safe, might injure someone", they would have been justified in doing so. The people playing #1 or standing along the parking lot could have been moved.

In your other post, you got near to some truths. I'm still waiting to hear a better way to word the rule. Do you have a draft of the whole rule?

My recommendation is to do away with the rule completely. It's silly and unnecessary. It won't change anyone's behavior to have the rule or not IMO. I don't think there are a glut of people out there saying "I normally might throw this and someone might get hurt, but the rule says no so I guess I won't". The repercussions of injuring someone with a disc go so far beyond a PDGA penalty that I think the whole thing is rather meaningless. If I'm playing a PDGA event, I'm not choosing to throw or not based on a written interpretation of a rule, I'm doing it based on doing what I reasonably can to not see people get hurt!

 

[Rastnav]

For a professional sport, they should be. They should be specific, and they should mean what they actually say.

I have to assume you are either just trolling at this point or have never read a rule book for a sport before.

 

[dmoore1998]

I have to assume you are either just trolling at this point or have never read a rule book for a sport before.

I've read a number, primarily professional sports, and while some of them I would consider "not great", they are light years ahead of the PDGA rules.

I've also read quite a few for youth sports leagues, most of those are also significantly ahead of the wording being used by the PDGA (though to be fair, most of those are generally "stealing" wording from other organizations and not coming up with them organically).

Please though, link me to the professional sporting association which has rules so horrific that even the officials of the sport pretty much all agree they're just not going to bother enforcing like PDGA officials do with this rule and the 30 second rule.

 

[biscoe]

While the PDGA rules may leave a lot to be desired, the Rules Committee today is a vast improvement over just a few short years ago. They can't fix it all at once.

 

[beereakfast]

In all seriousness, I appreciate all the responses here. I didn't expect to have 4+ pages of replies, much less most of them being mostly constructive.

Oh, we can fix that!

You should have smiled, waved, and peed on their disc!
Throw at me again. I can escalate this.....