Getting back 2 strokes for a Lost Disc

[Drew Smith]

So 805.03 D says,

If it is discovered prior to the completion of the tournament that a player's disc that had been declared lost has been removed or taken, then two throws are subtracted from the player's score for that hole.

So if I lose a disc, take a stroke, then someone returns it before the end of the tournament, do I get 2 strokes subtracted from my round?

I know what the intent should be (removed or take before you started searching, but taken as worded, you might be able to argue this one.

[Josh Connell]

I'd say no because it isn't the act of the disc returning that triggers the deduction of two throws, it is the discovery that the disc was removed or taken before it could be found. That your disc is found and returned isn't enough to argue that it was removed or taken at all. Unless we want people not even picking up discs that don't belong to them or their group, and thus never returning found discs during a tournament.

[Drew Smith]

I think it needs to be worded more clearly. The possibility of actually coming out a stroke ahead gives incentive to argue it. How can you be sure when it was picked up? Actually that may be why it's worded that way.

[Josh Connell]

I think the idea is that you don't get the throws removed from the score unless it's known that the disc was removed before it could be found. As in, the person turning it in says when they found it and you put 2+2 together to reveal the timing.

I won't disagree that the wording could be better. In fact, the old wording would be better and I can't imagine why it was changed with the new book (just another needless change to add to the list, really). The current rule reads that if it was discovered that a disc "that had been declared lost has been removed or taken". The old rule read "that had been declared lost had been removed or taken". The change in tense from "had" to "has" is what muddies the waters in terms of timing. I think saying the disc that had been declared lost had been removed clearly means the disc was removed before it could be found. The new wording leaves it more open to interpretation when the disc may have been removed. Either the authors made a typo that never got caught or they made the change thinking it wouldn't change the meaning or they were relying on institutional knowledge of the old rule to guide interpretation.

Seems like for every change they make to the wording of a rule to improve or simplify it, they make one or two changes that do the opposite.