Only 'dirtbags' take unplayable lies?

[Jeff LaGrassa]

This issue is evoking a lot of emotion on the PDGA DISCussion board. On a recent thread there, a disc golfer made the insinuation that those who take unplayable lies, such as when a putt hits the cage and rolls down 100 feet into some schule, are 'dirtbags.' When taking an unplayable lie, you are counting the stroke just made, assessing a one-stroke penalty, and rethrowing from the previous lie, which is quite a punitive action! Why would that make you a 'dirtbag?'

[Scott Connell]

I would guess that these people are thinking that taking advantage of that rule goes against the spirit of the game.

In other words, a lie should be TRULY unplayable in order to call it an unplayable lie. Otherwise, suck it up and throw.

I feel this way too, but wouldn't call someone a dirtbag for using the rule. I just don't think that should be the rule.

[Jeff LaGrassa]

Is it just the name that bothers people, because in almost all circumstances our lies are still playable? Would it be better if the terminology was 'undesirable lie?'

[Fred Doot]

Is it just the name that bothers people, because in almost all circumstances our lies are still playable? Would it be better if the terminology was 'undesirable lie?'

No, it's not just semantics (as expressed on the PDGA thread)..it's using the rules to buy a mulligan for a stroke. Frizzak's example is perfect. He gaks a 10 footer and rolls 100 feet down a hill. Not sure if the upshot can get within 10 feet, he can just call the lie unplayable and reshoot from the previous lie while taking a 1 stroke penalty (ZZ say's he's got the integrity to never call the rule himself, and more power to him..but he's at a disadvantage because others could/do use the rule to avoid an undesirable lie.)

Stoooooopid rule in my not-so-humble opinion..

[Scott Connell]

Is it just the name that bothers people, because in almost all circumstances our lies are still playable? Would it be better if the terminology was 'undesirable lie?'

Yes it would be better, in my opinion. It's certainly more accurate.

But if it was called "undesirable lie", that would make it patently obvious that it shouldn't be allowed at all.

If a putt is gakked and it rolls 100 feet away, them's the breaks. Events like that merely balance out events like an errant drive heading for OB way off the fairway, macking a tree and coming back on the fairway.

Abusing the "unplayable lie" rule is throwing that karma out of balance, eventually causing things like global warming and spotted owl extinction. It's just not right, I tell you.

JMO.

[Drew Smith]

Maybe the rule is just an excuse to call you 'dirtbag'

[Tom]

It seems like some people mistake the unplayable like rule as an unfavorable lie rule. While this would be against the spirit of the game for abusing the rule it doesn't mean that everyone that uses the rule is a dirtbag.

Instead of unplayable lie, maybe the rule should be called "death trap", only to be used if getting your disc could result in death.

[Scott Connell]

It seems like some people mistake the unplayable like rule as an unfavorable lie rule.

But the way it's written, it allows itself to be interpreted that way so it's not really a "mistake" on the player's part.

While this would be against the spirit of the game for abusing the rule it doesn't mean that everyone that uses the rule is a dirtbag.

Exactly. They're taking advantage of the rule as written. Perfectly legal. But the rule should be changed.

For the record, I don't visit the PDGA discussion page so I have no idea what's already been said on the topic over there.

[Dave McHale]

tom, the "unplayable" lie is the new "unsafe" lie, so technically your idea is what the old idea WAS. but since you didnt have to prove "safety" hazards, they changed the name. but obviously the rule as it is written does leave it open to abuse.

my argument is that the case for abuse is SO infrequent that I really don't see it as being some "major issue" in the rulebook. Yes, there are rare cases where a 10' putt may bonk, pick up and roll 100' downhill into the woods.... and in that case it's very unlikely that the player may get in the basket with only 2 more strokes. but it's no such an issue that i really think it affects the game. hell... the player may do it AGAIN

[Daniel Marcus]

There is no way to abuse one of the rules of our game...

[Dan Ouellet]

This takes away from the traditional game. That 10' shoot that rolls down the hill a 100' after hitting the rim should NOT be considered a unplayable lie. Unless, it's in tons of poison ivy, massive brambles, in a 50' pit with no way to get it, fell off the earth, got eaten by a squirrel, surrounded by bears, in quick sand, got cut in half by a chain saw and I really can't think of any other reasons not to PLAY THE RESTING PLACE OF THE DISC!

This is a bad rule and it will create problems.
Jeff, can a TD choose to use this rule/ not to use this rule as long as it was announced prior to the event?

Imagine a skins round and you miss the duce for 8 skins, your disc rolls away, you still can get a 3 and win the hole but your down the hill. Hmm, I could go down the hill and make a upshot (hope it's close and does not roll back) and take a 4 and carry the hole OR I could call a unplayable lie and take that duce shot again, hit it, since there was very little risk and carry the hole. Thats CHEAP and DIRTY! How could you live with yourself

[Chuck Kennedy]

Dan, there's a penalty involved so you're reputting for a 4 not a 3.

As I pointed out to Frizzak who was upset with the rule on the PDGA Board, write a better rule that's more fair. There likely isn't one as fair as the current rule, considering ball golf has had a few hundred years to figure out a better one.

[Scott Connell]

As I pointed out to Frizzak who was upset with the rule on the PDGA Board, write a better rule that's more fair. There likely isn't one as fair as the current rule, considering ball golf has had a few hundred years to figure out a better one.

We were talking about this yesterday, and Mike suggested that perhaps the penalty should be two strokes instead of one. That would allow the truly unplayable lie to be rethrown, but the penalty would be too stiff to be worth abusing the rule.

That sounds better to me.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Can't do it. Because then you have to change the OB rule to be a 2-shot penalty. Otherwise, if you bang and roll OB, you would get to come back to the original lie which, in theory, would seem just as unfair as calling a personal OB on yourself.

You also would not want a 2-shot penalty for unplayable in general because it wouldn't be fair in many situations such as landing above 2m. You might take a 2m penalty, end up in middle of a pine tree and have to take 2 more penalties to get a playable lie.

Try again. I'm not saying there isn't a better way to do the rule. But no other way has been found yet.

[Scott Connell]

Can't do it. Because then you have to change the OB rule to be a 2-shot penalty. Otherwise, if you bang and roll OB, you would get to come back to the original lie which, in theory, would seem just as unfair as calling a personal OB on yourself.

I don't get that. Why change the OB rule? That should take precedence over an unplayable lie situation anyway.

You also would not want a 2-shot penalty for unplayable in general because it wouldn't be fair in many situations such as landing above 2m. You might take a 2m penalty, end up in middle of a pine tree and have to take 2 more penalties to get a playable lie.

If a disc lands in the middle of a pine tree, then it should be marked straight down and back (from the pin) as far as necessary to be able to mark it. In other words, right behind the tree. Note: I'm not saying that's the current rule - I just think it makes sense.

Try again. I'm not saying there isn't a better way to do the rule. But no other way has been found yet.

I think a truly unplayable lie is almost non-existent. Plenty of undesirable lies, but very few unplayable. The only real ones I can imagine are those that would endanger the player, and those are so rare that a two stroke penalty is not that big of a deal IMO. Just the luck of the draw.

[Chuck Kennedy]

I don't get that. Why change the OB rule? That should take precedence over an unplayable lie situation anyway.

It's inconsistent for a similar situation to be penalized two different ways. If a player is 20 feet from pin, hits the basket and rolls 70 feet OB or 100 feet away into a bramble patch, the player would be able to rethrow it with a 1-shot penalty if going OB and 2 shots from the bramble patch with your proposal. Inconsistent.

Maybe 1 in 1000 or more OBs would be where the player's disc goes OB farther from the pin than the current lie. Unplayable calls are maybe 200 times less frequent than OB calls in general and the frequency of a lie that a player might call unplayable that's farther from the pin is maybe 1 in 1000, similar to OB. So to boost the penalty to 2-shots for the miniscule probability that a player might get a better break than the usual penalty, just isn't good rule making. The cure is worse than the problem.

[Scott Connell]

I don't get that. Why change the OB rule? That should take precedence over an unplayable lie situation anyway.

It's inconsistent for a similar situation to be penalized two different ways. If a player is 20 feet from pin, hits the basket and rolls 70 feet OB or 100 feet away into a bramble patch, the player would be able to rethrow it with a 1-shot penalty if going OB and 2 shots from the bramble patch with your proposal. Inconsistent.

I guess where we differ is that I wouldn't call it a similar situation. OB is OB, whether or not it's closer or farther than that bramble patch - it doesn't matter. And I would call a bramble patch "undesirable" not "unplayable", anyway.

I consider OB a completely separate issue, with clearly defined (and accepted) rules. To me it is unrelated to the unplayable lie issue, and comparing them just clouds up the discussion.

So to boost the penalty to 2-shots for the miniscule probability that a player might get a better break than the usual penalty, just isn't good rule making. The cure is worse than the problem.

According to your numbers, an unplayable lie situation is miniscule in the first place (and I agree). I would consider having to take a 2 stroke penalty just the luck of the draw, like any other bad result of a throw. But since it's that rare, I wouldn't consider the cure worse than the problem. IMO it would be better than the present rule.

But - different strokes, so they say.

[Bob Enman]

You can't compare the two
O.B. is a set area with a fixed penalty, if you go O.B. you wouldn't call it U.L
U.L is just a Mulligan for a price and the player decides whether to pay or not

[Bob Enman]

.....and if you're looking for a better way go back to the old rule and stop fixing things that ain't broke

[Josh Connell]

I have to say I agree with Chuck. It is a fair comparison between unplayable and OB. In either case, the player is left with a choice, each coming with its own set of consequences.

In the hypothetical situation being discussed, imagine that there is an OB at the bottom of the hill...I'm picturing something like hole 4 at Amesbury, for example. If you were putting on that hole, got a bad bounce and rolled down the hill into the OB, you'd be left with a choice of re-putting from your original lie (w/penalty) or taking your next shot at the last point in-bounds (w/penalty). The guy re-putting his original lie is likely to save at least one stroke vs taking the lie at the bottom of the hill, depending on how good his shot up the hill turns out. Either way, it's the player's choice which lie to play from.

Same principle applies if there is no OB at the bottom of the hill and a player deems the lie unplayable. He can take a stroke and re-putt from the original lie. Or he can choose to go the bottom of the hill and take his chances throwing from there without a penalty. But again, the choice is entirely his.

And I also want to echo Daniel's post saying that there is no way to "abuse" a rule of the game. The rule is the same for everyone. It's not as though one person can use it to their advantage when another is not allowed to. Choosing to not use one rule or another because you disagree with it philosophically is putting yourself at a disadvantage on the course, not the other way around. Abuse of the rules, IMO, is only calling a foot fault when the offending player is in your division because it's to your advantage, but letting anybody else slide because "he's not in my division so I don't care." Doing something that is completely legal within the confines of the rulebook can never be considered abuse of the rules. It's simply use of the rules.

--Josh

[Bob Enman]

I also agree with Daniel

I don't agree that O.B. is the same as U.L
If I go O.B. I can't choose not to take the penalty but I can choose to call any shot I make unplayable. O.B. is part of course design a U.L. can be used to negate course design aspects. You really can't use O.B. to your advantage but you can a U.L..
No I don't see these as being even remotely alike.

[Sean Franchi]

since when has Dano been in position to win a skin ?

[David Hoey]

but a good bump for a good burn.

[Jeff Prendergast]

6 years, 7 months. That must be a record.

[Drew Smith]

It's so old that when I read my post I didn't realize I had written it.

[Steven Dakai]

When I read the name Fred Doot it made me remember the sound of his knee popping out at Fairfield years ago. I was in another group waiting for them when we saw/heard it...F'n gross man!

[Brad Dahle]

I went to read the discussion on the PDGA site, but the message board has been taken down while they retool.