Your most recent provisional?

[sidewinder22]

What does lying have to do with anything?

You asked for another meaning of lie where it is also a plural.

 

[tbonesocrul]

You asked for another meaning of lie where it is also a plural.

Well you've made appear you don't understand context at least.

 

[sidewinder22]

Well you've made appear you don't understand context at least.

You lie.

 

[Phlick]

I've been playing tournaments for about 6 years and have never taken a provisional until my last tournament, where I had 3 - one in first round, 2 in the second. All were due to ambiguity as to what was in or out of bounds based on the TDs rule that OB lines were determined by most recent mowing. Given that 15/18 holes (?guess) have OB in play (Blue Lake in Portland) - I will never be playing another tournament at Blue Lake. TD's - if you're going to have OB on your courses (and please do!!) - PLEASE take the time to clearly define what is in and out of bounds.

 

[Steve West]

OK, now that the phrase "is confined to but also includes" is part of the conversation, I know the real purpose is to make all the robots-posing-as-humans' heads explode.

 

[krupicka]

I'm basing it on 803.03.G(1): "If an additional throw or throws have been made after the misplayed throws, the player shall complete the hole being played and be assessed a two-throw penalty for the misplay".

Once the first misplay occurred and multiple throws were made subsequent to it, the two throw penalty applied. I think adding a second penalty would be doubly penalizing for the same offense.

No different than if a scorecard were turned in late and the total was incorrect. The player wouldn't get a two-throw penalty for each infraction, it would be one two-throw penalty added to the correct score for a scoring error.

My thought is this: After the first misplay with multiple throws after the misplay, the +2 is applied. If there is a subsequent misplay, it's a different offense. Take this example:

Two players screw up the same hole (let's assume different cards to make it more plausible).

Tee shot goes OB with mandatory DZ. Players both play last place in bounds, throw another after that and then realize the misplay.
Player A panics, goes to the drop zone, continues play from there.
Player B gets out his rule book and continues play from his last throw.

Player A has now violated the misplay rule
Player B has not.

Under your interpretation both should be treated the same even though A has thrown incorrectly from two different lies, while player B has only the single misplay.

Probably a good question for the RC.

 

[JoakimBL]

I interpret the misplay rule so that the penalty is for the hole, not the throw. Either you misplayed the hole, or you didn't. How you misplayed it doesn't really factor in. If you misplay it several times, I'm thinking that the extra throws you make is penalty enough. Unless of course you do so deliberately, in which case DQ would come into play

 

[mcthumber]

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!!!

 

[JC17393]

My thought is this: After the first misplay with multiple throws after the misplay, the +2 is applied. If there is a subsequent misplay, it's a different offense. Take this example:

Two players screw up the same hole (let's assume different cards to make it more plausible).

Tee shot goes OB with mandatory DZ. Players both play last place in bounds, throw another after that and then realize the misplay.
Player A panics, goes to the drop zone, continues play from there.
Player B gets out his rule book and continues play from his last throw.

Player A has now violated the misplay rule
Player B has not.

Under your interpretation both should be treated the same even though A has thrown incorrectly from two different lies, while player B has only the single misplay.

Probably a good question for the RC.

I agree with Joakim that the penalty applies to the hole rather than the individual offense, particularly once it reaches the two-throw penalty for making multiple throws after the initial misplay. Player A likely is throwing extra shots in his double misplay, which by itself is arguably extra punishment enough compared to player B.

I also agree that it would be a good question for the RC. Feel free to send it in to them. I've bugged Conrad enough this week.

 

[Steve West]

I agree with Joakim that the penalty applies to the hole rather than the individual offense, particularly once it reaches the two-throw penalty for making multiple throws after the initial misplay. Player A likely is throwing extra shots in his double misplay, which by itself is arguably extra punishment enough compared to player B.

I also agree that it would be a good question for the RC. Feel free to send it in to them. I've bugged Conrad enough this week.

When a misplay happens, something is broken. That would make it difficult - probably impossible - to write rules that cover all possible situations to specify when misplays should stack up 2 penalties at a time.

For example, pretend the rule said "misplays on separate holes add up". What if a player thought he was OB, went to hole 2's tee for a drop zone (which didn't exist) and finished on hole 2s target. Is that misplaying one hole or two?

No, I don't want opinions on how this should be scored: The point is, misplays can become too messy for anything but judgement calls.

Putting on my TD hat, I would usually not impose several misplay penalties for one set of throws. Once it's broke, it's broke.

 

[krupicka]

I understand and don't want to pile on what is probably a bad day, but I don't think that once a player has a misplay on a hole that it absolves him from playing the rest of the hole properly.
For example:
Tee shot goes OB (mandatory DZ)
throw from last place in bounds
throw again.
Putts out from another player's disc.

Why shouldn't the second misplay here not be penalized just because he screwed up earlier on the hole?

btw I did send an email to the RC querying about these topics.

 

[Steve West]

I understand and don't want to pile on what is probably a bad day, but I don't think that once a player has a misplay on a hole that it absolves him from playing the rest of the hole properly.
For example:
Tee shot goes OB (mandatory DZ)
throw from last place in bounds
throw again.
Putts out from another player's disc.

Why shouldn't the second misplay here not be penalized just because he screwed up earlier on the hole?

btw I did send an email to the RC querying about these topics.

I'm not saying it shouldn't, nor am I saying the rules prevent a TD from doing that. I'm just saying it would be nearly impossible to lay out all the situations where the second misplay should or should not be penalized. These are situations that are outside normal play, so case-by-case judgement is probably the most fair way to handle them.

 

[sidewinder22]

Going back to the previous scenario of the drop zone misplay, you could also argue in fairness that it shall/should only be a 1 throw misplay penalty because they went back to the drop zone to play the hole correctly even after multiple throws. The 2 throw penalty shall/should only be applied if they completed play without going back to the drop zone because the hole was never actually played correctly. The rules state that the player shall/may continue the misplay after the second throw, which I think the reasoning behind that, is for speed of play.

801.01H is also written as "shall", which is not "must". "Shall" allows the TD to be fair in these types of scenarios. The player's intention in the drop zone scenario is to actually play the hole correctly and IMO anything more than the 1 stroke penalty seems a bit harsh for trying to play it correctly.

 

[JC17393]

Seriously? Shall is not must? Of course it is. Shall, as used in the PDGA Rules of Play, means MUST.

Merriam Webster defines shall thusly:

Definition of shall
1
archaic
a : will have to : must
b : will be able to : can

2
a —used to express a command or exhortation
b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory

3
a —used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future
b —used to express simple futurity

Shall is must. If you make multiple throws after a misplay, you MUST continue to play that sequence and you MUST take a 2-throw penalty for the misplay. It isn't harsh because if you are truly trying to play it correctly, you don't go back to the drop zone once that second throw is made post-misplay (because, you know, you're looking up the rule in the book rather than guessing or making things up).

 

[sidewinder22]

Seriously? Shall is not must? Of course it is. Shall, as used in the PDGA Rules of Play, means MUST.

Merriam Webster defines shall thusly:


Shall is must. If you make multiple throws after a misplay, you MUST continue to play that sequence and you MUST take a 2-throw penalty for the misplay. It isn't harsh because if you are truly trying to play it correctly, you don't go back to the drop zone once that second throw is made post-misplay (because, you know, you're looking up the rule in the book rather than guessing or making things up).

Not according to the Supreme Court.
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/

Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."

 

[krupicka]

Supreme court has no jurisdiction over the PDGA rules.

 

[Steve West]

Supreme court has no jurisdiction over the PDGA rules.

Even if it did:

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked in a majority opinion: "though shall generally means must, legal writers sometimes use, or misuse, shall to mean should, will or even may."

Ninth edition of Black's Law Dictionary
shall, vb. (bef. 12c) 1. Has a duty to; more broadly, is required to "the requester shall send notice" "notice shall be sent". This is the mandatory sense that drafters typically intend and that courts typically uphold. 2. Should (as often interpreted by courts) "all claimants shall request mediation". 3. May "no person shall enter the building without first signing the roster". When a negative word such as not or no precedes shall (as in the example in angled bracket), the word shall often means may. What is being negated is permission, not a requirement. 4. Will (as a future tense verb) "the corporation shall then have a period of 30 days to object". 5. Is entitled to "the secretary shall be reimbursed for all expenses". Only sense 1 is acceptable under strict standards of drafting.

Emphases added.

So, "shall" means "may" only when used as "shall not" means "may not".

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/shall_we_abandon_shall/

 

[sidewinder22]

Even if it did:




Emphases added.

So, "shall" means "may" only when used as "shall not" means "may not".

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/shall_we_abandon_shall/

Read that again....often not only.

When a negative word such as not or no precedes shall (as in the example in angled bracket), the word shall often means may.

 

[sidewinder22]

Even if it did:




Emphases added.

So, "shall" means "may" only when used as "shall not" means "may not".

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/shall_we_abandon_shall/

The author of the article further states in conclusion:

With one exception, shall has now been purged from all four major sets of federal rules, including evidence.

What is the exception? With Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56—the summary judgment rule—the advisory committee confronted warring factions on whether a federal judge must or may award summary judgment upon finding the requisite elements. Initially, the rule was promulgated with a may. But so much rancor ensued that the committee retreated to shall. It issued a note saying, more or less, "We're not sure whether this rule is mandatory or permissive, so we're reverting to the ambiguous shall. Let the courts figure it out."


My own practice is to delete shall in all legal instruments and to replace it with a clearer word more characteristic of American English: must, will, is, may or the phrase is entitled to.

 

[trifocal]

First we kill the lawyers.