NEFA DISCussion

Hey Chuck --

Do you know when the next ratings update is scheduled for? I tried finding the info on the PDGA website but there doesn't seem to be a date listed.

We're running an AM only tournament at Warwick on 9/20-21 and there some AM/Pros that are on the ratings bubble and they might be able to play if there is an update before then.

Thanks!

You're in luck. The next ratings update is Sept 18th. The current schedule for updates each year is always in the FAQ for Ratings under the question: When are ratings updated?

Another question for Chuck and the masses.

A player throws his/her initial drive and it appears to be OB. He/she then throws their 3rd and 5th shot OB from the same location. Shot 7 is in bounds. While walking the fairway they discover that the initial drive was in bounds. Do they:

A) finish the hole from where the shot 7 landed?
or
B) finish the hole from the initial drive, counting the 3 post shots as practice throws?

Thanks

Stephen Ditter wrote:Another question for Chuck and the masses.

A player throws his/her initial drive and it appears to be OB. He/she then throws their 3rd and 5th shot OB from the same location. Shot 7 is in bounds. While walking the fairway they discover that the initial drive was in bounds. Do they:

A) finish the hole from where the shot 7 landed?
or
B) finish the hole from the initial drive, counting the 3 post shots as practice throws?

Thanks

This has happened to me in a tournament before. Once the disc is declared OB and no provisional is taken, it is played as OB, even if it's later discovered that it came back in bounds.

Lesson learned: Whenever playing from the OB line, declare the shot a provisional unless you've already verified 100% that the original throw landed OB.

Bingo. If I were playing in a non-tournament situation, I would would not stroke someone for this however.

Yes. Actually, all the player has done if he rethrows without confirming OB or calling a provisional is in essence declared an Optional Rethrow. Optional Rethrows can always be taken whether a shot is later discovered to be IB or OB.

Chuck, there is a wooden tee platform, with a flypad. Off the from of the platform is a 3" drop. A thrower messes up his run up and upon release his heel is still on the platform but front of his foot is not. The question is: is this a foot fault? Is the front of the tee like the endzone in football?

Mike Zorovich wrote:Chuck, there is a wooden tee platform, with a flypad. Off the from of the platform is a 3" drop. A thrower messes up his run up and upon release his heel is still on the platform but front of his foot is not. The question is: is this a foot fault? Is the front of the tee like the endzone in football?

If his foot isn't contacting anything in front of the tee pad, if it's just sticking straight out into space in front of the pad, it's no different than any other body part being across the line (like, say, your arm upon and after release). It's not a supporting point unless it's making contact, even if you're talking a toe vs a heel on the same foot. The only thing that matters is the points making contact.

Now if the player has his toe on the ground and his heel on the tee at release, it's a foot fault (and probably an awkward, if not ankle breaking, throw considering the 3" drop).

We didn't play it as a foot fault, but were wondering the hole heel/toe same foot, is considered part of the supporting point. It is in the same shoe.

You're just mad cuz you guys were throwing rocs and I parked it with a putter.

I threw a ZONE, sucka....

Mike Zorovich wrote:I threw a ZONE straight into a tree and took a 4, in dubs, on a 220 ft hole, sucka....

Fixed that for ya.

Don't worry I got those back when you two took a five on #9...

|--------------------
| ----- rock ------- / --> basket
|_________________disc


My disc landed up against the front of this angled rock. The rock was 2 feet high and 5 feet long. We read the rule book and and referred to 802.03 Marking the lie. E: "If a large solid object prevents the player from taking legal stance behind the marker disc, the player may instead mark the lie by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play".

Players suggested that I mark the disc with a mini, and wedge my foot behing the mini and the rock to execute my throw. I read the rule that I could take my lie behind the big rock, and opt not to mark this lie with a mini.

Another player suggested that I stand on top of the rock. The rock as covered in moss.

I played it both ways, and thankfully took the same score. "Provisional". Im still not sure what was correct. Thanks.

You should have disqualified yourself

Next time, take picture(s) with cell phone or camera.

It saves a lot of troubles when trying to explain to TD about the situations.

When in question, take picture(s) and then do provisional throws. Show it to TD and see what happen.

Patrick Harris wrote:Next time, take picture(s) with cell phone or camera.

It saves a lot of troubles when trying to explain to TD about the situations.

When in question, take picture(s) and then do provisional throws. Show it to TD and see what happen.

He was the TD.

Sean Healy wrote:

Patrick Harris wrote:Next time, take picture(s) with cell phone or camera.

It saves a lot of troubles when trying to explain to TD about the situations.

When in question, take picture(s) and then do provisional throws. Show it to TD and see what happen.

He was the TD.

Yikes...well, then need to post up picture(s) for all of us to see for future references. The diagram that he put up are not clear. However, with his good English description of the situation, I can get the general idea.

It was on the lead card that had 4 players who have been playing for over 12 years each. We read the rule book and discussed for 5 minutes. If I didnt take the same score on both shots it would have been a debacle. The event was decided by 1 stroke, 3 holes later. The 2 main questions were "can a group force you to mark with a mini", and which of the two choices was my "provisional"?

The group cannot require you to use a mini in place of the thrown disc. If a large obstacle prevents you from getting a legal stance immediately behind the thrown disc, you can take up to 5 meters free relief. In this case, the rock being only 5 feet, it sounds like you were well within the five meters. You have the option to mark with a mini in front of the disc, and try to wedge your foot in, but it is certainly not required.

Brad,

The group cannot require you to use a mini in place of the thrown disc.

For the case stated, I believe this statement is correct...but (unfortunately IMO - the rules should be rewritten) in some cases of going OB, the use of a mini WOULD be required I believe.

If a large obstacle prevents you from getting a legal stance immediately behind the thrown disc, you can take up to 5 meters free relief. In this case, the rock being only 5 feet, it sounds like you were well within the five meters.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I want to make sure that others reading this thread understand that "you can take up to 5 meters free relief" (more than that would require a penalty shot also being added) BUT it must be the NEAREST relief...and just not anywhere along that line backwards up to 5m.

Craig,

...which of the two choices was my "provisional"?

It's true that this is an important question as if the scores were different AND either option ended up being viable (which I believe they both are), which sequence of throws should 'stand'? IMO if no declaration of provisional was made, the first was the "real" throw and the second would've been the provisional.

Karl

Patrick Harris wrote:Next time, take picture(s) with cell phone or camera.

It saves a lot of troubles when trying to explain to TD about the situations.

When in question, take picture(s) and then do provisional throws. Show it to TD and see what happen.

Taking a picture in this kind of situation would be a waste of time...

QA 36: Is Video Evidence Allowed for Rulings?
Q: A spectator managed to capture video evidence of some stance violations and courtesy violations like one player swearing and another drinking during the round. Can any of those video clips or snapshots be reviewed by an official to subsequently issue warnings or penalties?
A: No. At this point, media evidence such as video, photos or audio clips cannot be used by officials or TDs for making rulings. Only direct visual accounts of possible rules infractions observed by players, spectators or officials may be used by TDs to make rulings.

Brad Harris wrote:The group cannot require you to use a mini in place of the thrown disc. If a large obstacle prevents you from getting a legal stance immediately behind the thrown disc, you can take up to 5 meters free relief. In this case, the rock being only 5 feet, it sounds like you were well within the five meters. You have the option to mark with a mini in front of the disc, and try to wedge your foot in, but it is certainly not required.

You are quoting the wrong rule for this situation. The player does not get up to five meters of relief from a "large obstacle". A large obstacle is not a casual obstacle. It is simply a solid obstacle.

802.03 Marking The Lie
E. If a large solid obstacle prevents the player from taking a legal stance behind the marker disc, the player may instead mark the lie by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play.

Cuts' choices were as he described, and I don't think any of them were necessarily wrong. It should ultimately be a judgment call by the group. The operative part of the large obstacle rule is if it prevents the player from taking a legal stance. A legal stance includes not foot faulting, so I'd argue that even if one could "wedge" their foot behind a marker, if they can't stand in some way that allows them to maintain balance and not commit a stance violation, then the player can invoke 802.03 E and move directly behind the obstacle. Using that same argument (can't take a legal stance where the disc is), I would also support the ruling of calling it a disc below the playing surface and moving up on top of the rock and throwing from there.

Hypothetically, if I were the TD and the provisionals resulted in two different scores and thus I had to decide between the two results, I would take the score that resulted from the lie in front of the rock (I'm assuming that "both ways" was the mark in front of the rock and the one behind it, not the one on top). My reasoning being that if the player was able to take a legal stance (one in which there was a supporting point behind the marker and no stance violation/falling putt was committed), then the rock wasn't a solid obstacle in accordance with 802.03 E and there was no need to mark directly behind it. The rule is there to provide an alternative if a stance can't be taken. If a stance can be taken, there's no need to invoke the rule.


On another related note, if the TD is playing the event, it's a good idea to have at least one certified official (or absent one, a designated official) who is not playing in the TD's division available at the tournament. This official can act as arbiter for rules disputes within the TD's division since by rule, the TD cannot rule on those disputes.

The only way I could take a "legal stance" from where the disc landed was to mark it with the mini. The thrown disc was pinned up underneath the angled rock. That would have resulted in an awkward stance .I preferred to not mark with mini, and throw from behind the rock.

It felt like I was argueing for the "easier" shot (lie). Which is why the group (and I agreed) made me play from both options. But if I didnt score the same score, it would have been a debacle.

Craig Cutler wrote: But if I didnt score the same score, it would have been a debacle.

Or a pretty exciting playoff between you and Steve.

i read the posts but didn't see an answer - can the group force a player to use a mini?

what would have been weird is if cuts made the awkward stance putt, but missed the one behind the rock. then everyone would start arguing against the viewpoint they were just supporting

for ratings
in theory would they just add all your rounds over the time period divide by the number of rounds and then add the average to your current rating?

Titan_Bariloni wrote:for ratings
in theory would they just add all your rounds over the time period divide by the number of rounds and then add the average to your current rating?

I believe they will drop any rounds that are way out of line with your rating like 100 points off when they do this average.

Not as simple as that because not every rating is an 18-hole round. Plus, your most recent 25% of your rounds are double weighted and you may have rounds being dropped because they are now more than 12 months older than the date of your most recent round.

if Big Jerm keeps up his pace of late he could make a run at highest rated player

if my math is correct and a ratings update was this week he might even already be that guy

Titan_Bariloni wrote:if Big Jerm keeps up his pace of late he could make a run at highest rated player

if my math is correct and a ratings update was this week he might even already be that guy

I think your math may be at even par along with your English. No way he makes a 20 point jump from 1027 to 1047+. Ricky and Paul should be a tight race to the top rated. I want to see someone hit 1050.