Player not present...

[Chuck Kennedy]

It wouldn't have to be the TD making the ruling as long as it was an official designated by the TD as part of the tournament team, not just any certified official.

If it becomes clear that a player is not coming back, then groups can merge if it becomes no more than 5 players. A 2-person group in a division with more than 2 players should not continue if at all possible by either merging with a 3-some or splitting up to join two other groups where neither becomes larger than 5.

[Dag]

Thanks for the response to the excessive delay portion of my question. I've not yet seen an answer which satisfactorily addresses the issue of a player proceeding solo, without any other members of the group to witness their throws. For clarity, the situation once again:

Three player card in a sanctioned tournament. I have lost a disc so 803.11 B dictates 'the group will determine the approximate lie from which the throw was made, and the player will throw again from that lie.' One member of our group states he has to go to the bathroom and leaves, the other accompanies me to help determine previous lie. We play forward to the basket to find not only our third player but his disc as well gone missing. We later learn that the missing player finished the hole with no other players present before going to the bathroom.

Actually, players are responsible for watching other playeres make the throws and complete the hole. If the player says they completed the hole with a certain score, benefit of the doubt goes to that player unless the other players can counter what the player said based on their observations.

I'm assuming you're referring to 801.01 A, 'Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.' I would have gladly watched the throws in question here but as I was the away player, 'the player whose lie is farthest from the hole and who shall throw next', I was obligated to be halfway back up the fairway and out of sight of where the individual was throwing. Bit pedantic but 'shall' trumps 'should'.

So big deal, guy threw out of turn...right? How do I, or anyone else for that matter, know that he didn't three putt the basket, or simply not complete the hole? It was acceptable for him to continue play without any other members of his group present? The only thing that could have been done was to warn him of a courtesy violation for throwing out of turn, quite the deal if it saved several throws on the card. I suppose if I wanted to get a bit ridiculous I could have declared each of his claimed, un-witnessed throws, to have been out-of-bounds as there was no one around to determine in-bounds status as per 803.09 B 'If the in-bounds status of a disc is uncertain, either a majority of the group or an
official shall make the determination. If the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered out-of-bounds but that's pretty damn silly.

There are situational rulings where a throw or lie must be verified/witnessed by the group to be valid. Why is there not a ruling covering all throws/lies? This seems very basic and commonsensical to me.

[jenb]

I think your option, if you did not want to let him play out of turn and hole out unmonitored, would be to issue him a warning for advancing past your lie when you are the away player, and then follow him and watch him throw again and again out of turn as you add penalty throws each time. But you can't assent (by your silence) to him throwing out of turn and holing out unmonitored and then cry foul.

[John Rock]

Not so fast...

The rules do allow a player to remain silent on some situations and cry foul at a later time. For instance - 3 players in a group smoke a bowl of "time-killer" while waiting their turn at the TEE. The 4th player in the group declines their offer to participate and keeps to him/herself for the rest of their wait. After the round that 4th player can cry to the TD that the others on the card were violating the no-pot rule, even though that player made no objections at the time.

[Apothecary]

you sound like you speak from experience.

[John Rock]

First tournament experience in 1986, I've seen many attempts at cheating since then.

[Frank Delicious]

I think he was implying you would be the dude who wouldn't say anything and then complain to the TD afterwards.

[jenb]

Not so fast...

The rules do allow a player to remain silent on some situations and cry foul at a later time. For instance - 3 players in a group smoke a bowl of "time-killer" while waiting their turn at the TEE. The 4th player in the group declines their offer to participate and keeps to him/herself for the rest of their wait. After the round that 4th player can cry to the TD that the others on the card were violating the no-pot rule, even though that player made no objections at the time.

The rules specify that a player must receivce a warning for advancing out of turn before they can be penalized for doing it. And the rule about people witnessing other people hole out puts a duty on you to watch while he throws, not a duty on him not to throw unless you are watching. That rule assumes it is his turn, but if you let him play out of turn, and then look away as he throws, you can't penalize him. If anything, the competition player conduct rules would penalize you for overt failure to follow and enforce the rules. I'm not saying its fair, but it does walk the line between what is fair and what is practical. If players could make accusations after the round about not seeing someone hole out, when they didn't speak up during the round, things could really be a mess, you know? If the rules were that loose as concerns warning procedures and opportunity to comply, the potential for abuse would be too great.

[Apothecary]

The rules specify that a player must receivce a warning for advancing out of turn before they can be penalized for doing it. And the rule about people witnessing other people hole out puts a duty on you to watch while he throws, not a duty on him not to throw unless you are watching. That rule assumes it is his turn, but if you let him play out of turn, and then look away as he throws, you can't penalize him. If anything, the competition player conduct rules would penalize you for overt failure to follow and enforce the rules. I'm not saying its fair, but it does walk the line between what is fair and what is practical. If players could make accusations after the round about not seeing someone hole out, when they didn't speak up during the round, things could really be a mess, you know? If the rules were that loose as concerns warning procedures and opportunity to comply, the potential for abuse would be too great.

how does that penalization system work? i looked in vein for that section in my rulebook.

[Frank Delicious]

The rules specify that a player must receivce a warning for advancing out of turn before they can be penalized for doing it. And the rule about people witnessing other people hole out puts a duty on you to watch while he throws, not a duty on him not to throw unless you are watching. That rule assumes it is his turn, but if you let him play out of turn, and then look away as he throws, you can't penalize him. If anything, the competition player conduct rules would penalize you for overt failure to follow and enforce the rules. I'm not saying its fair, but it does walk the line between what is fair and what is practical. If players could make accusations after the round about not seeing someone hole out, when they didn't speak up during the round, things could really be a mess, you know? If the rules were that loose as concerns warning procedures and opportunity to comply, the potential for abuse would be too great.

So I can ruin everyone in my group's round by continuously throwing out of turn and then telling the TD they didn't stop me?

[Apothecary]

only if you want to get stroked every time you throw out of turn (post warning of course).

my question is say i see the group in front of me not following basic rules and not calling each other on violations. i bring it up to the td with my whole card witnessing their lack of action.

what happens to the players who were negligent in enforcing the rules?

[jenb]

what happens to the players who were negligent in enforcing the rules?

First of all, you'd have to demonstrate that they had knowledge of the rules. 3.3(B)(11) is usually a rule by which player's hang themselves. So if you complain about the card in front of you not following the rules, then probably nothing will happen. But if you are in a group with someone, and fail to try and enforce a foot fault or something until after the round, and if you are a serious D-hole about it, then the TD could potentially invoke 3.3(B)(11) and DQ you, and other consequences could follow, like being suspended from competing in sanctioned tournaments for x number of years or months. I think the rule more typically is invoked against TDs who let people skate on obvious rule violations, like open use of drugs and alcohol during tournament rounds, but I don't know for sure.

3.3 Player Misconduct
A. The PDGA adopts a strict policy of appropriate behavior and comments to the media. Any conduct deemed to be unprofessional is subject to disqualification by the Tournament Director, and may also be subject to further disciplinary actions from the PDGA.

B. Players are expected to behave in a professional and sportsmanlike manner while participating in a PDGA sanctioned event. Actions that are in violation of this conduct include but are not limited to:
...
(11) Overt failure or refusal to enforce the rules of disc golf during competition.

As for the rest:

801.02 Order of Play
...
E. Throwing out of turn shall be considered a courtesy violation. See 801.01F.

801.01 Courtesy
A. Players should not throw until they are certain that the thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure anyone present. Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.

...

F. A player violating a courtesy rule may be warned by any affected player, even if from another group, or by an official, with all players of the group advised of the warning. The player shall be assessed one penalty throw for each subsequent courtesy violation of any type in the same round. Repeated violations of courtesy rules may result in disqualification in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Competition Manual.

I can't believe I actually studied for the official's exam. That test was embarassinly easy. Certified Officials should have to take it 5 times and get 5 perfect scores in a row, or something.

Anything else?

[Apothecary]

First of all, you'd have to demonstrate that they had knowledge of the rules.

isnt that pretty much impossible to do in events that dont require players to have passed the rules test? that seems like a weird standard to me. the rules are the rules regardless of a players knowledge of them and it seems that the expectation would be that, if a player is competing, they know the rules.

if a player was playing on a card of friends that decide to pad their scores by cheating as a group by not calling penalties, whats the check against them claiming that they just didnt know the rules when someone on another card brings it up to the td?

[jenb]

You have found the loophole. Congratulations. Now go to lawschool and start helping rich people exploit loopholes FTW.

It pays better than disc golf. Trust me.

I just wish I could buy youth, talent, and skill.

[Dag]

I think your option, if you did not want to let him play out of turn and hole out unmonitored, would be to issue him a warning for advancing past your lie when you are the away player, and then follow him and watch him throw again and again out of turn as you add penalty throws each time. But you can't assent (by your silence) to him throwing out of turn and holing out unmonitored and then cry foul.

I'm not certain you've actually read the thread prior to this point. The incident I describe is being used to illustrate a shortfall in the current rules, no silent assent nor crying foul. There are a number of actions under the current rules that require a specified number of witnesses to be valid. This should be extended to all actions within a sanctioned round. Adherence to a ruling such as this would be loose in most situations, much as it is with the thirty second rule, but it would provide a tool with which to address individuals who would abuse it.