Throwing at another card during round

[chevis]

maybe they are ignorant of golf etiquette, & the "best" thing to do is meet with them on the next tee & explain some basic rules to them

 

[brutalbrutus]

maybe they are ignorant of golf etiquette, & the "best" thing to do is meet with them on the next tee & explain some basic rules to them

Yup... The **** I've seen, and I'm sure nearly everyone else around here has also, chuckers do on the course is just astonishing. I used to play in a large group on Sundays but we weren't Zombie Mob golfing...


...but i can't count the number of times I've seen other groups doing this.


You know the ones... 5-10 guys throw their tee shots and then start wandering down the fairway... get to their lie, pick it up and throw in one motion and then continue to wander down the fairway even if others in the group haven't thrown yet behind them.

 

[coupe]

I struggle to think of any good rule where you are prohibited from doing something, if something "might" happen. It's a horrible rule because it carries NO real meaning.

Here's one that shows up in every physics lab:

even though, as a matter of fact, dozens, if not hunderds or thousands, of people every day voluntarily look directly into laser beams every day—and pay good money to do so, despite the fact that looking into a laser beam might seriously damage their eye.

It doesn't even define that it's about competitors being hurt

Oh, REALLY??? Can't be much clearer than:

812 Courtesy

A. A player must not:
1. Throw if the throw might injure someone or distract another player;

Hard to imagine how someone could miss the "must not throw if the throw might injure someone" unless they're deliberately misrepresenting the rule.

 

[dmoore1998]

Here's one that shows up in every physics lab:

even though, as a matter of fact, dozens, if not hunderds or thousands, of people every day voluntarily look directly into laser beams every day—and pay good money to do so, despite the fact that looking into a laser beam might seriously damage their eye.



Oh, REALLY??? Can't be much clearer than:



Hard to imagine how someone could miss the "must not throw if the throw might injure someone" unless they're deliberately misrepresenting the rule.

I think you're misinterpreting my part about "it doesn't even say competitors being hurt". It's BROADER than competitors. So you cannot throw if you MIGHT injure SOMEONE (i.e. not just competitors, but anyone). So if you MIGHT injure a spotter, you cannot throw. And if you have a spotter, you ALWAYS "might" injure them by throwing if they are near enough to where you intend to throw to be a meaningful spotter. Anything MIGHT happen, so based on the rule as currently written, you can almost never throw without violating the rule. That's why it's a poorly written rule, it's written in a way that you basically can't do the activity for which the rule is written to apply to, namely, throwing discs in a tournament/competition.

 

[Steve West]

I think you're misinterpreting my part about "it doesn't even say competitors being hurt". It's BROADER than competitors. So you cannot throw if you MIGHT injure SOMEONE (i.e. not just competitors, but anyone). So if you MIGHT injure a spotter, you cannot throw. And if you have a spotter, you ALWAYS "might" injure them by throwing if they are near enough to where you intend to throw to be a meaningful spotter. Anything MIGHT happen, so based on the rule as currently written, you can almost never throw without violating the rule. That's why it's a poorly written rule, it's written in a way that you basically can't do the activity for which the rule is written to apply to, namely, throwing discs in a tournament/competition.

So your issue is with the word "might". That's worth discussing.

Have you ever thought: "I might injure someone, but I'm going to throw anyway."?

Nothing in disc golf is serious enough that anyone should ever get hurt. If a thrown disc did ever injure someone, the rule should be such that it clearly was not legal to make that throw.

What phrase would work to make that happen, while allowing players to throw more often than almost never?

 

[dmoore1998]

So your issue is with the word "might". That's worth discussing.

Have you ever thought: "I might injure someone, but I'm going to throw anyway."?

Nothing in disc golf is serious enough that anyone should ever get hurt. If a thrown disc did ever injure someone, the rule should be such that it clearly was not legal to make that throw.

What phrase would work to make that happen, while allowing players to throw more often than almost never?

Specifically that using the word "might" makes the rule so unenforceable that there's no reason to have it be a rule to begin with. I've absolutely thought "I might injure someone, but I'm going to throw anyways", I pretty much think that every time I pack up to go throw. If I wasn't willing to accept some level of risk that I might hit someone with a disc, I'd probably never play. We do our best, and try to make reasonable choices IMO.

I think the idea of "nobody should ever get hurt" is just unrealistic. Put enough flying discs into the air and even the most reasonable and responsible people are occasionally going to throw one that ends with someone hit...and a lot of what happens when someone gets hit is random chance as to whether they're injured or just fine after. I don't think it's about the result "injury" it's about the decision prior. If I accidentally hit a spotter because it takes a bad kick and injures him...I think I've acted a lot more responsibly than someone who routinely fires into groups ahead of them and gets lucky to never hit someone.

If a thrown disc did ever injure someone, the rule should be such that it clearly was not legal to make that throw.


I disagree, and I'll give a personal example. Tunnel hole with trees and ravine to both sides of the fairway. I throw a shot first, then move down the fairway to act as a spotter because kicking off a tree and down the hill is tricky to see from the tee. I'm standing behind a tree just peeking out as much as possible. A friend fires a dart down the side of the fairway, I duck back behind the tree, it kicks almost 90 degrees exactly and drills me below the belt while I'm literally behind the tree. 1 in a million shot. Hurt like hell. I was injured, but I still think it's perfectly ok that he threw. The same could happen in many tournaments that use spotters.

Personally, I'm not sure a "rule" is needed. I mean we have "rules" that you don't throw into someone, but it's more etiquette than anything else. I think a lot of the "etiquette rules" from the PDGA should probably just go away as they seem to not be enforced (I mean if you play a flex with a group of your jerk friends, and you keep throwing into people, can someone on another card even call you for that? Does someone on the other card 2nd it?). You can say "not likely to injure someone", you can say "it's reasonable to believe you won't injure someone", but it's all subjective. I'm just not sure it's needed. Mistakes happen, and they'll continue to happen. I don't think there are so many folks out there intentionally trying to injure folks with throws that having an unenforceable rule makes sense.

 

[ru4por]

Rule semantics aside. I think you just let them play though, as well. A quick chat at that time, about consideration and making the round great for everyone (that is why we are letting you play through). Received well, or not...the group is no longer in a position to throw on you.

 

[chevis]

Yup... The **** I've seen, and I'm sure nearly everyone else around here has also, chuckers do on the course is just astonishing. I used to play in a large group on Sundays but we weren't Zombie Mob golfing...
...but i can't count the number of times I've seen other groups doing this.
You know the ones... 5-10 guys throw their tee shots and then start wandering down the fairway... get to their lie, pick it up and throw in one motion and then continue to wander down the fairway even if others in the group haven't thrown yet behind* them.

funny you mention sunday mob golf, during our sunday league our group of 4 comes up on a big group of 6 or 7 on hole 1 (we started on 18). some of them had already tee'd off, but we ask if we could play through & they say they already waited for the group (of 2) in front of them. we watch the rest of them tee off & they are all over the place, so we figure we could skip to 3 (easy skip). so we go over to 3 & the group of 2 are just finishing hole 2. so we sit on 3s tee & watch these 2 play incredibly slow (for a 2some). so we are still sitting on the tee of 3 by the time the group we skipped are putting on 2. i was thinking we should just go back to 1, but before i could say anything our card was teeing off. we were in the wrong here, so you can't always judge the speed of a group by its size (they skipped to another part of the course, rather than follow us).

*this makes a group fast, but the danger is real: one of them missed another by inches

 

[ru4por]

funny you mention sunday mob golf, during our sunday league our group of 4 comes up on a big group of 6 or 7 on hole 1 (we started on 18). some of them had already tee'd off, but we ask if we could play through & they say they already waited for the group (of 2) in front of them. we watch the rest of them tee off & they are all over the place, so we figure we could skip to 3 (easy skip). so we go over to 3 & the group of 2 are just finishing hole 2. so we sit on 3s tee & watch these 2 play incredibly slow (for a 2some). so we are still sitting on the tee of 3 by the time the group we skipped are putting on 2. i was thinking we should just go back to 1, but before i could say anything our card was teeing off. we were in the wrong here, so you can't always judge the speed of a group by its size (they skipped to another part of the course, rather than follow us).

*this makes a group fast, but the danger is real: one of them missed another by inches

In my experience, jumping around to the benefit of yourself, usually seems to come at the expense of others on the course. There are exceptions, but they are usually involving an empty course. I also think that starting on 18, puts you in a position to wait your turn on 1. I am sure you were trying to do the right thing, but it rarely turns out that way on most reasonably crowded courses.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Thread needs poll.

I vote "knife fight."

 

[dmoore1998]

In my experience, jumping around to the benefit of yourself, usually seems to come at the expense of others on the course. There are exceptions, but they are usually involving an empty course. I also think that starting on 18, puts you in a position to wait your turn on 1. I am sure you were trying to do the right thing, but it rarely turns out that way on most reasonably crowded courses.

It probably also goes wrong more often when the intent is essentially to "anticipate a gap will open up" by assuming what the pace of play will be, as opposed to jumping into an actual opening.

I also can't imagine how embarrassing it is to ask to play through, be denied because of X, skip a hole ahead anyways, then realize X was definitely true and now you look like the jerks on the course...even when you had the best intentions. It's far more embarrassing when you know you've become the one doing something wrong than being blissfully ignorant of it.

 

[coupe]

I think you're misinterpreting my part about "it doesn't even say competitors being hurt". It's BROADER than competitors. So you cannot throw if you MIGHT injure SOMEONE (i.e. not just competitors, but anyone). So if you MIGHT injure a spotter, you cannot throw. And if you have a spotter, you ALWAYS "might" injure them by throwing if they are near enough to where you intend to throw to be a meaningful spotter. Anything MIGHT happen, so based on the rule as currently written, you can almost never throw without violating the rule. That's why it's a poorly written rule, it's written in a way that you basically can't do the activity for which the rule is written to apply to, namely, throwing discs in a tournament/competition.

Either you're arguing for the sake of arguing what is a morally indefensible position or you've been living under a rock for the past 30-some years.

News flash for you: the rule ain't just about not injuring competitors. The rule has in view the safety and wellbeing of those other park users every bit as much as other competitors, AS IT SHOULD.

In case you haven't notice, the overwhelming majority of sanctioned (and unsanctioned) DG tournament to date have been held in—and for the foreseeable future will continue to be held in—mixed use parks; and even when courses are reserved for tournament use it is rarely, if ever, the case that the entire park is closed to all other activities. As has been stated in every thread about "clueless" park users wandering on the course, ONLY DISC GOLFERS SEE FAIRWAYS; EVERYONE ELSE JUST SEES A PARK. As disc golfers, WE understand the danger posed by thrown discs; we CANNOT, nor should we, assume that the general public understands that danger. That puts the onus squarely on US—particularly in the context of a tournament—to minimize every foreseeable possibility of injuring other park users, not just fellow competitors.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

^ From my mouth, could these words have been taken.

 

[dmoore1998]

Either you're arguing for the sake of arguing what is a morally indefensible position or you've been living under a rock for the past 30-some years.

News flash for you: the rule ain't just about not injuring competitors. The rule has in view the safety and wellbeing of those other park users every bit as much as other competitors, AS IT SHOULD.

In case you haven't notice, the overwhelming majority of sanctioned (and unsanctioned) DG tournament to date have been held in—and for the foreseeable future will continue to be held in—mixed use parks; and even when courses are reserved for tournament use it is rarely, if ever, the case that the entire park is closed to all other activities. As has been stated in every thread about "clueless" park users wandering on the course, ONLY DISC GOLFERS SEE FAIRWAYS; EVERYONE ELSE JUST SEES A PARK. As disc golfers, WE understand the danger posed by thrown discs; we CANNOT, nor should we, assume that the general public understands that danger. That puts the onus squarely on US—particularly in the context of a tournament—to minimize every foreseeable possibility of injuring other park users, not just fellow competitors.

So if any individual, including your card mates, or a spotter, or anyone else, is within an area which represents your maximum throwing distance in any direction...you do not throw? Because if you do, you MIGHT injure someone.

There's a big difference between your choice of words "minimize" (which is totally subjective, but I think is a good word and would be a decent implementation of the rule wording change) and not throwing if you MIGHT injure someone (which would be anything greater than 0%).

 

[Steve West]

So if any individual, including your card mates, or a spotter, or anyone else, is within an area which represents your maximum throwing distance in any direction...you do not throw? Because if you do, you MIGHT injure someone.

There's a big difference between your choice of words "minimize" (which is totally subjective, but I think is a good word and would be a decent implementation of the rule wording change) and not throwing if you MIGHT injure someone (which would be anything greater than 0%).

You really think someone MIGHT throw backwards their maximum distance? Be honest.

 

[fishballer06]

You really think someone MIGHT throw backwards their maximum distance? Be honest.

You've never thrown a 150g DX Leopard nose up into a 40mph headwind, huh?


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.

My point of this thread was to see what the penalty would be if this had been an issue with other players in the league. Obviously its the wild wild west when it's just rec rounds. Had this not been a sanctioned league round, I'm sure I would have taken the time to make some more choice words with them after the second time it happened.

 

[dmoore1998]

You really think someone MIGHT throw backwards their maximum distance? Be honest.

I don't think it's likely, but I've seen some really REALLY horrible throws in my life. Maybe not 6 o'clock backwards, but I've definitely seen some 4 o'clockers. Fortunately, their max distances were also not good. Definitely more backwards than 90 degrees to the target.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

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. :\

 

[Rastnav]

I don't think it's likely, but I've seen some really REALLY horrible throws in my life. Maybe not 6 o'clock backwards, but I've definitely seen some 4 o'clockers. Fortunately, their max distances were also not good. Definitely more backwards than 90 degrees to the target.

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.

 

[Steve West]

I don't think it's likely, but I've seen some really REALLY horrible throws in my life. Maybe not 6 o'clock backwards, but I've definitely seen some 4 o'clockers. Fortunately, their max distances were also not good. Definitely more backwards than 90 degrees to the target.

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.