Couple of interesting ones from Worlds

2 humorous little anecdotes from Worlds....

1 - A poser in the I pool 'warned' someone for not being present when the scores were called out. The person not present had mentioned that he was stopping by the restroom on the way to the next tee. He was not late for his tee shot; however, just the 'score tallying'.

2 - Yet another I pool poser attempted to stroke someone for 'littering' when he put his cigarette down to throw. The cigarette was picked up immediately after the throw, since it was still being smoked.

I'm glad I was in the J pool. We had a lot more fun. :D

[MTL21676]

maybe these people should practice thier golf instead of making up rules - the I pool was the third pool down - I guess they had a lot of strokes to make up and were going to do it any way they could

[20460chase]

Listen to this guy......just kidding Rob.It was great meeting and playing with you.Hope to see you around.

[ck34]

On hole 10 at Pickard, Mark Ellis persuaded the group that he could mark his lie up on the little footbridge crossing the "dry" creek bed near the basket rather than mark and play it from where the disc landed under the bridge. He claimed the "rule of verticality" allowed him to do that and the group agreed. He proceeded to make the putt.

I don't believe this is allowed, just like you aren't supposed to move your lie up to the top of a picnic table if you land under it. The Rules Q&A on lies under the playing surface doesn't say it's not allowed and, of course, 'playing surface' is not defined. I might be more willing to allow Mark to move his lie back and up to the top back edge of the creek bed based on casual relief from the muddy creek bed and that would have moved his lie back from the basket 2-3 more feet.

[neonnoodle]

On hole 10 at Pickard, Mark Ellis persuaded the group that he could mark his lie up on the little footbridge crossing the "dry" creek bed near the basket rather than mark and play it from where the disc landed under the bridge. He claimed the "rule of verticality" allowed him to do that and the group agreed. He proceeded to make the putt.



There is no rule concerning “Lie Beneath the Playing Surface”. Marking a lie on the playing surface when the disc is “above” the playing surface is provided for within our rules, but not the other way around. My guess, based on the rules, is that if a disc falls into a hole or onto a playing surface where the player physically can not take a stance or mark their lie, that reposition to a lie on a playing surface above that is not permitted (Carlton has said as much in related rules discussions). The only ruling I can see that would allow Mark to move his lie would be 803.05 UNSAFE LIE.

The “Rule of Verticality” is only specified for deciding if a disc is OB or not. It is not available for gaining relief. The lie is always on the playing surface immediately below the disc (particularly if the disc is laying on that surface!)

If I were the official and asked to make a ruling I would (if prior to the next throw) rule that the play must proceed from where the disc came to rest with no relief other than what is stipulated in the rules (in this case, from what I know, no relief is warranted); (if after the next throw and played as Chuck described), I would advise that improper and illegal relief was taken and that the lie was illegally marked and played. The marking of the lie is a warning; the illegal relief is an immediate one-stroke penalty.

Could this be clarified within our rules? Perhaps. But guided by the rules we do have, and the underlying precept of “Play it where it lies”, for me, this action is clearly in conflict with our rules of play. (I can think back to another occasion where this was IMO misinterpreted and illegal relief obtained.)

I will pass this along to the PDGA Rules Committee for a better answer.

803.02 MARKING THE LIE
A. After each throw, the thrown disc must be left where it came to rest until the lie is established by the placing of a marker. This can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, touching the thrown disc.
G. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a marking rule if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. One penalty throw shall be assessed for each subsequent violation of any marking rule during the round if observed by two or more players of the group or an official.

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for casual obstacles by 803.04 C. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc.) as they are considered part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, a player may not move an obstacle (or hold it back or bend it) in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.
E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

Todd Branch had a similar question in the same creek. His disc was near the back wall of the creekbed. If he marked it he would have to play from in the creekbed, but if he played the disc he couldn't get a foot behind it and had to play from the top. I said that was fine, but the other two players weren't sure. To avoid conflict, he played out of the creekbed and made the putt.

[cbdiscpimp]

I threw a drive into the Creek behind hole # 7 at Carol Marty. The disc was last seen kicking up dust about 40 to 50 feet left of the pin. It must have slid down the slope directly to the left of the basket and then floated 60 ft down the river because it came to rest on a beer bottle that was sunk down in the water. When i go to play my drop right at the bottom of the slope to the left of the pin my group tells me i cant take the drop there and i have to play it where the disc stopped moving when NO ONE saw it enter the river they just saw where it ended up after it went in the river. I proceed to throw my upshot and hit a branch and roll right back into the same creek and float all the way down to where my drive was. ONLY then did they let me drop from the slope where my DRIVE had to have gone it at in the first place.

I take a double circle 6 where i should have taken an EASY circle 4 maybe even a circle three. Looks like from now on i will be playing a provisional on EVERY call where my group doesnt agree with me. 2 Stokes off my final score and i take 18th instead of 21st all because i had to play a BS drop. :mad:

[ck34]

If you used the rulebook (which of course you carried with you?), you could have gotten the circle 4. It's a courtesy violation on your group mates not to have seen your shot disappear, especially since it's possible you could have ended up with a lost disc and the dust cloud is where it was last seen, at least by you. The momentum of casual water does not move a lie, nor does it change the point your disc last left IB when water is OB. You always have the option to take a provisional (like I did twice at Pickard) until the rule is resolved later with an official.

[seewhere]

sounds like the creek bed rules were not STATED very clearly at the players meeting. seems to have been alot of players unsure of what the call was.

[specialk]

Not really a Worlds story but the Sunday after Worlds:

1. While trying to recreate a -13 performance I had witnessed at ISU the previous week, one of my playing partners tossed some trash in the barrel on #17. The barrel growled at him. Rather, the raccoon which presumably climbed into the barrel via the sign post and got trapped growled at him. We gently tipped the barrel over to let him out.

2. On #12 at Pickard I stepped in a bee hive or something that was only about 10' off the fairway and in a spot that should have seen alot of discs during the week. I got assaulted by many bees while tromping through the grass and got one on my eyebrow, which caused my eye lid to swell shut this morning. Nice.

[rhett]

Guy I know sees a sign with little letters on it, so he walks up to read it. Since we are old, we don't see that great anyway. He gets all the up to the sign only to find that it says "Caution: Bees", and the bees proceed to chase him. :)

He didn't get stung or it wouldn't have been funny.

[rhett]

Guy I know sees a sign with little letters on it, so he walks up to read it. Since we are old, we don't see that great anyway. He gets all the up to the sign only to find that it says "Caution: Bees", and the bees proceed to chase him. :)

He didn't get stung or it wouldn't have been funny.

[okcacehole]

redundant :D

redundant :D

So should they make a bigger sign or get rid of the bees??

[sandalman]

get rid of the OMB division! :D

I had an issue with hole #7 at CM, two players in my group agreed it was ok but one insisted that I was OB. He argued it all the way to the TD. It was ruled in my favor after myself and another player in my group showed the TD where the lie was.
If two players agree, should this over rule the one guy who is being a jerk. :confused:

[gnduke]

That wasn't the disc that was called in bounds because a blade of grass from the bank was under the disc while it was surrounded by water ?

[bruce_brakel]

I had an issue with hole #7 at CM, two players in my group agreed it was ok but one insisted that I was OB. He argued it all the way to the TD. It was ruled in my favor after myself and another player in my group showed the TD where the lie was.
If two players agree, should this over rule the one guy who is being a jerk. :confused:



My group had an issue on that hole too. A player came to rest on a root extending over the creek. The disc was entirely within the o.b. line defined by the water's edge on either side of the creek.

The player and one other member of the group were arguing whether it was o.b. I suggested that we play on, since he was going to mark one meter from the water either way, and ask the TD at hole 1. The TD read the disc suspended rule and called it o.b.

NO

Wrong, the TD ruled it in bounds and corrected my score. You were the other player arguing with me brucey boy. Why can't you just tell the truth. You screwed me once out of two strokes at Big Creek and I was not about to let you do it again.
Jerk

[ck34]

A disc suspended over OB is OB no matter what it's touching or resting on, or what it's height is above OB. All OB lines project vertically and if the disc is completely on the OB side of that projected OB line and not touching it, it is OB. Not sure if that matches the situtation being described but that's the rule if it is.

[neonnoodle]

Really?


Rule Question: Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)
Question: My throw landed on a bridge that spans an OB creek. The TD has not said anything about playing from the bridge. Do I play from the bridge, or is my disc OB since it's above the creek? What if I'm on the bridge but over land? Does it matter if the bridge is more than two meters above the ground below?
Response: The answers to these questions revolve around the definition of OB. In the glossary section of the rules, it states that the OB line "extends a vertical plane upward and downward". Where does that plane end? The rules do not address that directly. There seem to be two reasonable choices:

A: The vertical plane extends indefinitely up and down.
B: The vertical plane ends when it reaches another playing surface.

Option A requires less interpretation, and option B makes more sense intuitively. The Rules Committee has discussed the issue and has decided that option B is preferable.

Although the term "playing surface" is not defined in the rules, it is used frequently and it is unlikely to be a source of confusion. Something is either a playing surface or an object on the course. A bridge, though man-made, is intended for foot traffic and clearly qualifies as a playing surface. Since it is not an object on the course, the two-meter rules does not come into play.

The IB/OB status of a playing surface is not affected by the OB status of another playing surface above or below it. OB applies only to the playing surface that contains it. Otherwise, a number of non-intuitive rulings result:


In the bridge example, the part of the bridge that is above the OB creek would be OB. A perfectly playable lie on the bridge could be OB, a foot away from a lie that is IB, when there is no direct reason for it to be OB. Players will have difficulty extrapolating where the OB part of the bridge is, especially if the OB line below is uneven (if it follows the creek's edge). Even if the TD uses paint or string to mark OB on the bridge, those lines will see a lot of foot traffic and may not last.
At least one course has an OB culvert that runs under and opens into a fairway. If the vertical plane of the OB line extends indefinitely, then there is a strip of OB on the fairway over the culvert.
If an OB creek undercuts a bank, then the top of the bank is OB even if it is obviously playable. Someone would have to determine how far the creek undercuts the bank to figure out just where the OB line on the bank is.
There is an overpass with a street high above a section of the course. The street, of course, is OB. If the plane extends downward, then a street-wide chunk of the course below is also OB.
If you interpret the vertical plane to end when it reaches another playing surface. you get much more intuitive rulings in the above scenarios. The bridge is IB, the fairway above the culvert is IB, the bank that overhangs the creek is IB, and the ground below the steet overpass is IB. All of the playing surfaces above are easily distinguished from those above or below which contain OB.

Conclusion: You play a disc on a bridge as you would play it anywhere else on the course. Assuming the bridge is not OB, you mark your lie on the bridge and proceed with the hole. If your disc lands under the bridge, you play it from under the bridge, taking any OB into consideration as you normally would. Of course, the TD or course designer is free to make any or all of the bridge OB, in addition to the creek below.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

Dr. Rick Voakes
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Carlton Howard

[ck34]

What I said was correct subject to no additional IB playing surfaces being defined by the TD.

Like I said , I took the TD to the area and he ruled it in bounds. It should not have been an issue to begin with.

[ck34]

Like I said , I took the TD to the area and he ruled it in bounds.



So was it a correct ruling based on this discussion? Apparently, the TD must have ruled that part of your disc was touching the vertical OB line (if that's what we're talking about)?

Wrong, the TD ruled it in bounds and corrected my score. You were the other player arguing with me brucey boy. Why can't you just tell the truth. You screwed me once out of two strokes at Big Creek and I was not about to let you do it again.
Jerk



Girly,

I thought it was a pleasure to walk with your group at Big Creek. Apparently you had some kind of problem there. You might have also gotten something big and uncomfortable stuck up your backside in Iowa. You should probably have it removed so you can get over it! :D

[neonnoodle]

What I said was correct subject to no additional IB playing surfaces being defined by the TD.



Only OB need be defined, not IB. If it is not OB then it is considered IB. This does beg the question about branches and roots over and within a defined OB line being a playing surface or not; which would lead to the question of how could anything be over 2 meters if trees and roots are playing surface?

Again, a "Playing Surface" definition is greatly needed to clarify all of this.

[rick_bays]

A disc suspended over OB is OB no matter what it's touching or resting on, or what it's height is above OB. All OB lines project vertically and if the disc is completely on the OB side of that projected OB line and not touching it, it is OB. Not sure if that matches the situtation being described but that's the rule if it is.



If the playing surface (grass in this case) continues over and extends into the OB area, then that section of playing surface is safe (the edges of the blade of grass then define the OB line of verticality).

If his disc was surrounded by OB water, but still resting on top of a blade of grass which was part of the playing surface (this is how it was described, yes?) then that should be safe.

In fact, it just occurred to me that the "surrounded by OB water" part of my description above is inaccurate. The live blade of grass acts as a peninsula of fair ground jutting into the water, therefore the disc isn't really surrounded.

Right?

[ck34]

Nope. The blade of grass is irrelevant if you follow the vertical OB line. A player landed on asphalt. The disc had some dirt under it that looked like it was connected to the ground beyond the path. However, if you dug down a quarter inch, it was apparent that the asphalt was there so the disc was completely over asphalt. The disc is OB.

Ok...this is becoming far more difficult then it has to be. Common sence dictates things.

803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.02 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered in-bounds.

If your on a log...or a blade of grass...and completely surrounded by water, your O.B. The vertical line extends from the edge of the water. A few blades of grass can't be considered a playing surface. I have seen this rule come up more this year than ever before. Countless times I have seen players land on a log surrounded by water. And each time, it's O.B.

Yea it was Bruce Brakel,or was it you. maybe it was both of you. You said it "BIG". I'm not the only one who complained about your brother. Looks like he was telling another one his non truths at Walnut Ridge

Yes, he declared that I should have been ruled in bounds.

[rick_bays]

Ok...this is becoming far more difficult then it has to be. Common sence dictates things.

803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.02 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered in-bounds.

If your on a log...or a blade of grass...and completely surrounded by water, your O.B. The vertical line extends from the edge of the water. A few blades of grass can't be considered a playing surface. I have seen this rule come up more this year than ever before. Countless times I have seen players land on a log surrounded by water. And each time, it's O.B.



Hmmm... I suppose this will depend upon how the OB area is defined by the TD (prior to the round).

If the OB line is defined as "the edge between the grass and the water" then resting on grass is safe.

If the OB line is defined as "the edge of the concrete (as the other example you provide above" then resting on grass, but surrounded by concrete, is OB. However, if the OB were defined as "where the grass meets the concrete" then resting on a live (attached to the playing surface) blade of grass on top of concrete would be safe. A clump of grass growing between cracks in the concrete would not be safe (not part of the playing surface).

Typically, the OB line of a body of water is defined as the shoreline. If it is a concrete shoreline as some man-made ponds, then its easy to determine. If it is a natural shoreline, then the only definition of the OB line I can see is "where the land (soil, rocks, vegetation) meets the water."

Therefore, under that definition of OB line, if your disc is resting upon soil, rock, or vegetation, that is part of the playing surface - you're safe.

No? do I need to brush up on my rule book?

Yea it was Bruce Brakel,or was it you. maybe it was both of you. You said it "BIG". I'm not the only one who complained about your brother. Looks like he was telling another one his non truths at Walnut Ridge



:DLove that southern humor! :D

[ck34]

This water/land boundary problem is why natural boundaries should be made unacceptable for defining OB in the future. You can't tell where the water and land boundary actually is located sometimes, especially if the water undercuts the land which it does regularly. String, cable, concrete edge OK. I'm pushing for using cable at our new NDGC in Augusta to define the OB along the shorelines even though it will be a lot of line. The water level varies over quite range during the year there that a natural OB line would vary up to 50 feet in some spots from July to January if we don't permanently mark the OB line.

Then you would like the Southern hospitality as well. :D

[bigchiz]

I had an issue with hole #7 at CM, two players in my group agreed it was ok but one insisted that I was OB. He argued it all the way to the TD. It was ruled in my favor after myself and another player in my group showed the TD where the lie was.
If two players agree, should this over rule the one guy who is being a jerk. :confused:



My group had an issue on that hole too. A player came to rest on a root extending over the creek. The disc was entirely within the o.b. line defined by the water's edge on either side of the creek.

The player and one other member of the group were arguing whether it was o.b. I suggested that we play on, since he was going to mark one meter from the water either way, and ask the TD at hole 1. The TD read the disc suspended rule and called it o.b.



A player in my group landed accross a branch/stick that was in the water and continued to dry land. The upstream side of the branch was wet, but on the downstream side of the branch a mound of mud had pooled. The disc was resting across the stick. Most of the disc was in the water, part of it was across the branch, and the downstream side of the branch was "dry" and connected to the creek bank.

Our group of three could not come to a consensus, and a provisional was played. After the round the TD said it was a group call, with benefit of the doubt going to the thrower. Since it was unclear as to if the disc was completely surrounded by water, the player was not accessed a penalty.

A simple painted line, or rope, or string, used to define the edge of the creek up on the grassy area would have made these situations a lot less confusing.

A similar type problem occured at DMACC #17. The shot was a hyzer out accross the water, and landed in the side of the bank, wedged into the mud. Was it wet or not? The other two players concluded that the disc hit and chopped the bank to create water around the disc. Umm, yea, sure. The disc hits the bank OB, the disc doesn't move, but cuts away the bank in a manor that the disc is now surrounded by water. Ok by me, I'm the thrower in this case. Ended up taking a circle 3 there

[bruce_brakel]

Sounds like we are talking about different rounds. When it happened to my group the TD said it was his gut impression that it was in bounds bu he'd have to read the rule. I walked away. The other non-thrower stayed back and argued the point. Then the TD came up to us on tee 1, read the suspended disc rule out loud, and called it o.b.

[bigchiz]

Guy at DMACC proclaims "I'm not leaving without that JLS." Next he disrobes and wades through the moss to retrieve the disc. His upper arm was bare, and a lot more.

[gnduke]

This brings up another question.

If the root is considered an IB area over OB, do you get relief from the lower OB area, or are you required to mark and play the lie on the upper IB area ?

Beyond that, nothing that extends from the IB area into the OB area that is not a playing surface changes the OB/IB line. Rarely would a blade of grass, or a root be considered a playing area.

This brings up another question.

If the root is considered an IB area over OB, do you get relief from the lower OB area, or are you required to mark and play the lie on the upper IB area ?

Beyond that, nothing that extends from the IB area into the OB area that is not a playing surface changes the OB/IB line. Rarely would a blade of grass, or a root be considered a playing area.



whether your disc is IB or OB you always get a meter relief from the OB to mark for your next throw.

Then you would like the Southern hospitality as well. :D



I'm sure I would, that's probably why I enjoyed walking with your group on Monday.

Come on Bruce , you can't be loosing your memory that quick. You should have hung around and walked down to the hole. He changed your ruling that it was OB. He said your drawing wasn't even close to being correct. I will not continue this issue with a dishonest man who can't tell a decent truth. You must be a lawyer or a politician

[


Our group of three could not come to a consensus, and a provisional was played. After the round the TD said it was a group call, with benefit of the doubt going to the thrower. Since it was unclear as to if the disc was completely surrounded by water, the player was not accessed a penalty.


Exactly my point,

[rick_bays]

This water/land boundary problem is why natural boundaries should be made unacceptable for defining OB in the future. You can't tell where the water and land boundary actually is located sometimes, especially if the water undercuts the land which it does regularly. String, cable, concrete edge OK. I'm pushing for using cable at our new NDGC in Augusta to define the OB along the shorelines even though it will be a lot of line. The water level varies over quite range during the year there that a natural OB line would vary up to 50 feet in some spots from July to January if we don't permanently mark the OB line.



Was that the long way of saying I was right? C'mon... I'm not right often, I need some kudos when I get lucky.

Ok, so what about shorelines that fluctuate while a disc sits there? Many lakes have small waves... a disc could conceivably be sitting safe, then be OB when a wave washes up, then be safe a second later, then OB another second later as next wave hits.

Hey, Mini_Big_Arm____World_Champion, can you make your name smaller? It's making the name/avatar column so large I don't get as big of a display for the message column.

[g1iguy]

I heard Des Reading tried to stroke someone in her group for using the tape measure (from the players pack) to check if her disc was above 2 meters. Stating the following rule. 802.04 The use of devices which assist in determining distances , such as range finders, are prohibited.

[neonnoodle]

If she did, then she is wrong. They are only prohibited for determining distances to throw, not from OB or above the playing surface or other measurments necessary to comply with our Rules of Play.

[ck34]

This is from the Rules Q&A section under: Measuring Devices within 10 meters:

Measuring devices are allowed when it's necessary to determine a distance in order to make a ruling:

30 centimeters, stance
1 meter, lie near OB
2 meters, lie above ground
3 meters, stance on tee pad
5 meters, casual relief and unsafe lie
10 meters, putting

Although the rule could be made more clear, the wording earlier in the official rule refers to measuring devices being used 'to assist in making a throw', not after a throw has been made.

[g1iguy]

Her group did not stroke her. But it wasn't brought up by Des until after they determined that her disc was above 2 meters.

There's a rule that could use some clarification. As it is worded she could be correct. A tape measure is a device that is used to determine distance. We all know that's not what the rule is for, but as it's worded currently....

[neonnoodle]

We've already discussed this at length:


The use of devices which assist in determining distances , such as range finders, are prohibited.



Note the use of the phrase "determining distances" and the only specified example "range finders"; it is clear that what is prohibited are devices that can determing distances having to do with throwing a disc competitively. Furthermore, why would our rules have exact measurements if it was prohibited to "measure" them.

If she said that it was illegal to measure and see if a disc was above 2 meters, then she was wrong.

This being said, you might be right that some clarification would be useful. I'm not sure of the problems that might arise if wording were to be added.

[idahojon]

This is from the Rules Q&A section under: Measuring Devices within 10 meters:

Measuring devices are allowed when it's necessary to determine a distance in order to make a ruling:

30 centimeters, stance
1 meter, lie near OB
2 meters, lie above ground
3 meters, stance on tee pad
5 meters, casual relief and unsafe lie
10 meters, putting

Although the rule could be made more clear, the wording earlier in the official rule refers to measuring devices being used 'to assist in making a throw', not after a throw has been made.



That's all fine and good, but until the Rules Q&A section is provided as part of the written rulebook that everyone should carry, you have to rely on the interpretation of the group or official on the scene. In this situation, I would have ruled that the use of the tape was appropriate and allowable.

Nick said:

Note the use of the phrase "determining distances" and the only specified example "range finders"; it is clear that what is prohibited are devices that can determing distances having to do with throwing a disc competitively. Furthermore, why would our rules have exact measurements if it was prohibited to "measure" them.




It's not clear at all. And the words "such as" doesn't limit it to range finders. It could include measuring tapes, yard sticks, or surveyor's chains.

And the rule doesn't say "measuring devices" "used to assist in making a throw." It say "artificial devices" which in my world means a mechanical device that holds the disc, giving the player some sort of physical advantage in throwing. The distance measuring devices part is in the last sentence in that paragraph.

I agree that the use of a measuring device to make a ruling is within the intent of the rule, but the wording doesn't make it clear. If we had a rulebook like traditional golf, that has examples and explanations, it would be much easier for all.

[g1iguy]

The rule doesn't specify vertical or horizontal distance.

Regardless sounds like Des was being a Crybaby Pee Pants. :p

Is this normal behavior? :confused:

[neonnoodle]

The rule doesn't specify vertical or horizontal distance.



It doesn't need to. The distinction is between measuring distances in compliance with the rules(30cm, 2 meters, 10 meters, 1 meter, etc) and measuring distances to gain an advantage in making your next throw. There is a clear difference.

The rule doesn't specify vertical or horizontal distance.



It doesn't need to. The distinction is between measuring distances in compliance with the rules(30cm, 2 meters, 10 meters, 1 meter, etc) and measuring distances to gain an advantage in making your next throw. There is a clear difference.



But Nick, the rule doesn't make that distinction as it is written. Show me where it does. As Jon said, the Q&A doesn't count.

[g1iguy]

...but it doesn't say that!

"The use of devices which assist in determining distances , such as range finders, are prohibited."

This is all it says! Nothing about gaining an advatage or which distances you are measuring.

[neonnoodle]

From: Carlton Howard
To: nickkight
CC:
Subject: Re: Rules Committee: Lie on a Lower Playing Surface
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:26:16 -0400

Nick,

We believe that Mark improved his lie illegally...assuming of course that
the TD did not designate the area as one that had that type of relief
under the special conditions rule (the Rule of Verticality only applies
when marking in relation to OB!).


Since we did a Q & A on this while Mark was on the committee he may be
taking that as a precedent...but the Q & A is pretty clear on the fact
that the TD must specify such relief. Of course, the Q & A has a special
(kind of rare) topographical condition. Bridges are commonplace, as is
landing under them! In golf players are expected to play it from where
they threw it. Mark did not do that.

Yours Sincerely;

chh







nickkight
08/16/2004 12:45 PM
Please respond to
nickkight@hotmail.com


To
chh3
cc

Subject
Rules Committee: Lie on a Lower Playing Surface







Name: Nick Kight
Pdga number: 4861
Phone: 856 312 2241

Message:

What happened: On hole 10 at Pickard, Mark Ellis persuaded the group that
he could mark his lie up on the little footbridge crossing the "dry" creek
bed near the basket rather than mark and play it from where the disc
landed under the bridge. He claimed the "rule of verticality" allowed him
to do that and the group agreed. He proceeded to make the putt.

My interpretation: There is no rule concerning ?Lie Beneath the Playing
Surface?. Marking a lie on the playing surface when the disc is ?above?
the playing surface is provided for within our rules, but not the other
way around. My guess, based on the rules, is that if a disc falls into a
hole or onto a playing surface where the player physically can not take a
stance or mark their lie, that reposition to a lie on a playing surface
above that is not permitted (Carlton has said as much in related rules
discussions). The only ruling I can see that would allow Mark to move his
lie would be 803.05 UNSAFE LIE.

The ?Rule of Verticality? is only specified for deciding if a disc is OB
or not. It is not available for gaining relief. The lie is always on the
playing surface immediately below the disc (particularly if the disc is
laying on that surface!)

My ruling: If I were the official and asked to make a ruling I would (if
prior to the next throw) rule that the play must proceed from where the
disc came to rest with no relief other than what is stipulated in the
rules (in this case, from what I know, no relief is warranted); (if after
the next throw and played as Chuck described), I would advise that
improper and illegal relief was taken and that the lie was illegally
marked and played. The marking of the lie is a warning; the illegal relief
is an immediate one-stroke penalty.

Could this be clarified within our rules? Perhaps. But guided by the rules
we do have, and the underlying precept of ?Play it where it lies?, for me,
this action is clearly in conflict with our rules of play. (I can think
back to another occasion where this was IMO misinterpreted and illegal
relief obtained.)

Related Rules:
803.02 MARKING THE LIE
A. After each throw, the thrown disc must be left where it
came to rest until the lie is established by the placing of a marker. This
can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between
the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, touching the thrown
disc.
G. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a marking
rule if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. One
penalty throw shall be assessed for each subsequent violation of any
marking rule during the round if observed by two or more players of the
group or an official.

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance
which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as
allowed for casual obstacles by 803.04 C. No relief is granted from park
equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc.) as they are
considered part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, a player may
not move an obstacle (or hold it back or bend it) in order to make room
for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make
incidental movement of an obstacle.
E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for
violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

Question to PDGA RC: Is it permissable to move your lie to a legal playing
surface above the legal one your disc came to rest upon because it is
impossible to take a legal stance, is impractical or is unadvantagious to
take your lie where it came to rest? Also, does the rule of verticality
allow such interpretation?

Thanks!

[neonnoodle]

Note the use of the phrase "determining distances" and the only specified example "range finders"; it is clear that what is prohibited are devices that can determing distances having to do with throwing a disc competitively.



It would take a special kind of logic to think this prohibits you from following all other rules where measurements are used: like DAFFY!

"The use of devices which assist in determining distance necessary for a successful throw, such as range finders, are prohibited. Measuring devices may be used for measurments having to do with the rule, such as 30cm for stance, are permitted."

The Q & A does count by the way.

Nick, no one is arguing the implied nature of the rule, or what the RC said. It's what's in the BOOK that Shawn is talking about. And what's in the BOOK does not support your theory.

[idahojon]

That's good. Quote yourself, then write a new rule and put it in quotation marks (as if it's real) to support yourself. Who's daffy here, Nick?

I agree that the spirit of the rule is to allow measuring devices to confirm distances specifed in the rules, BUT THE RULES ARE NOT WRITTEN THAT WAY.

And, no, the Q&A doesn't count, because it is not a formal document that is available to all players, the way the Rules of Play is. (And downloading it from the website doesn't work. Not everyone is as connected as you.) Once it's part of the Rules of Play, updated frequently, and carried by all players and officials for immediate reference, then it will be. It's a reference document only. And actually, even then, it will be a reference document only. Not every situation is exactly like the ones covered in the Q&A. Lots of inferences must be drawn from them to help with rulings. We all do our best out there.

...but it doesn't say that!

"The use of devices which assist in determining distances , such as range finders, are prohibited."

This is all it says! Nothing about gaining an advatage or which distances you are measuring.



So, according to your interpretation you couldn't actually prove that someone who performed a jump putt next to the basket violated the 10m putt rule because that would involve measrureing. You could retrieve a disc from 20' up in a tree and still throw it because it would be illegal to show that it was more than 2m off the ground.

I also noticed that, convieniently, the entire rule wasn't posted:



. During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw, except those devices that reduce or control abrasion to the skin (such as gloves, tape, bandages, gauze, etc.) and medical items (such as knee and ankle braces, etc.). Items used to prevent slipping on the teeing surface are also allowed. A player is specifically prohibited from using any artificial device that changes the position of the disc in the player's hand or artificially lengthens any of the player's throwing levers (fingers, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc.). The use of devices which assist in determining distances , such as range finders, are prohibited.



In that context it sounds pretty obvious that it's talking about devices that are being used to help gain an advantage. It could be worded better, but I don't see how it could logically be interpreted to make it illegal to use a measureing tape to see if a disc is more than 2m above the ground.

[neonnoodle]

Jon, I quoted myself because I had already answered Dan's question. I then offered a possible clarification of the rule (which I think now is unnecessary). And I didn't call anyone "daffy" just the logic that would have a rule negate all rules having to do with rules measurements.

And I have to agree with Annie, it is clear when reading the entire rule that only devices that aid in making a throw are prohibited, not ones that aid with compliance with the Rules of Play.

If you want to dissect it even more you could say that a tape measure isn't "assisting" you to determine a distance, it is actually "determining" the distance and therefore it is legal.

This rule has to be clarified so that it actually states the intent, not just implies it.

[g1iguy]

I completly understand the rule. I have been using a 1m measuring device for over 5 years now. I am just playing the devils advocate. If one of our top female pros can intturpet the rule the wrong way and the fact that we are having this disscussion makes me think that the wording can be imporved.

[neonnoodle]

802.04 ARTIFICIAL DEVICES
A. During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw, except those devices that reduce or control abrasion to the skin (such as gloves, tape, bandages, gauze, etc.) and medical items (such as knee and ankle braces, etc.). Items used to prevent slipping on the teeing surface are also allowed. A player is specifically prohibited from using any artificial device that changes the position of the disc in the player's hand or artificially lengthens any of the player's throwing levers (fingers, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc.). The use of devices which assist in determining distances, such as range finders, are prohibited.

Now specific examples are offered throughout, don’t you think if the rules writers wanted tape measurers included they could have very easily done so.

The rule clearly starts out by stating “a player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw” and the sentence about devices to “assist in determining distances” is in the same section and same paragraph. Add to this the huge illogic of having one part of a rule, an isolated sentence, negate a whole host of entire ther rules, and it really should not be that difficult to deduce that:

“ “A player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw,” including any device to “assist in determining distances, such as range finders, are prohibited.”

Could it be worded better? Perhaps. So far no one here has done so.

Regardless, the rule is known and can be properly interpreted from our Rulebook. Any rule can be improperly interpreted. It doesn’t mean the rule is poorly written, that the person misinterpreting it is stupid or cheating, or that it needs to be rewritten. It means that we all need to better educate ourselves about it.

Note: Jon, not everyone has access to a rulebook either. If I were on the PDGA BOD it would be a requirement for participation in PDGA events.

[sandalman]

“A player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw,” including any device to “assist in determining distances, such as range finders, are prohibited.”

no, thats not better. in fact, it is barely english.

how about this:

"Devices capable of measuring distances greater than 10m are prohibited and may not be carried. Any legal device may not be used to determine any distance other than those measurements pertaining to the enforcement of the following rules: a) the 2m rule, b) the 10m putt rule, c) 1m OB relief, d) situations involving casual relief . A player found carrying a prohibited measuring device shall be given a 2 stroke penalty without warning. A player who uses a prohibited measuring device for any measurement shall be DQ'd.”

prolly have to be more specific in item d, but its a start.

[gnduke]

Probably a little too restrictive since I haven't seen many 10M tape measures in the hardware stores and a 35' tape measure (the most common length that would be sufficient) would be illegal.

It is much clearer though.

If you are listing uses, also list 5m casual and unsafe lie relief.

[neonnoodle]

“A player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw,” including any device to “assist in determining distances, such as range finders, are prohibited.”

no, thats not better. in fact, it is barely english.

how about this:

"Devices capable of measuring distances greater than 10m are prohibited and may not be carried. Any legal device may not be used to determine any distance other than those measurements pertaining to the enforcement of the following rules: a) the 2m rule, b) the 10m putt rule, c) 1m OB relief, d) situations involving casual relief . A player found carrying a prohibited measuring device shall be given a 2 stroke penalty without warning. A player who uses a prohibited measuring device for any measurement shall be DQ'd.”

prolly have to be more specific in item d, but its a start.



You stone cold idiot. :DLOL!

The distinction is not how much you can measure, but for what purpose. You can measure distances required to be in compliance with rules that have set measurements. You can not measure distances to gain an advantage in competitively throwing a disc.

"A player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw,” " such as range finders, are prohibited.”

[ck34]

So, is it illegal to peek at the footage signs they use to provide distances from the basket from various fairway positions at the USDGC? Would I be able to put my own distance "post-its" out there since everyone would have access to them?

[neonnoodle]

Heavens to Betsy!?! Are tee signs "artificial devices"? This kind of knit-picking could be done on a variety of rules (I know, I've done it), it still does not make it right to misinterpret the rules when the intent is known.

Has anyone written to the PDGA RC about this? I'm at my quota for the month...

Doesn't seem necessary to involve the RC for an interpretation of the rule. We all seem to agree as to the correct interpretation. The problem (which isn't a large one) lies in the language of the rule itself. The language is ambiguous.

[sandalman]

"but for what purpose."

exactly! you catch on soooo quick! :D

thats why i wrote "Any legal device may not be used to determine any distance other than those measurements pertaining to the enforcement of the following rules"... to allow for measurements whose purpose is to follow the rules.

gary ,good point about 35'.

ya know... why not just abolish this rule anyway? really, as chuck points out we already have tee signs that are GPS'd to 1m accuracy. the orig9in/purpose of this rule should be revistied and the rule considered for disposal, imo.

My memory says that the last sentence about range finders was added in the lastest revision. Prior to that, I believe it was on the rules Q&A page.

Following Chuck's thoughts about post-its, I think it's pretty common for BGers to carry a little notebook with their own personal notes on the course including distances from possible landing areas. Would this be legal? I believe that question is legitimate as it's different from a tee sign (or other permanant distance markers) in that the person with the notebook has a distinct advantage over those that don't have it.

How about a GPS unit? You can pre-prgoram pin position locations, then it should be fairly simple to determine current distance from the pin.

Heavens to Betsy!?! Are tee signs "artificial devices"? This kind of knit-picking could be done on a variety of rules (I know, I've done it), it still does not make it right to misinterpret the rules when the intent is known.

Has anyone written to the PDGA RC about this? I'm at my quota for the month...



On several levels, and for varied reasons, this may be the single greatest post of Nick Kights career. And I've been around for a few thousand of them. That's all I can say.

So, is it illegal to peek at the footage signs they use to provide distances from the basket from various fairway positions at the USDGC?

Distance signs that are installed by a TD are an integral part of the stipulated course, in the same way that teepads, walking paths, baskets, OB markers, etc., are integral parts of the course, and are not, therefore, "artificial" devices.


Would I be able to put my own distance "post-its" out there since everyone would have access to them?

801.01.D, F. :D

[sandalman]

how do ya know who installed them?

:cool:

Proposed amendment:

802.04 ARTIFICIAL DEVICES

A. During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw, except those devices that reduce or control abrasion to the skin (such as gloves, tape, bandages, gauze, etc.) and medical items (such as knee and ankle braces, etc.). Items used to prevent slipping on the teeing surface are also allowed. A player is specifically prohibited from using any artificial device that changes the position of the disc in the player's hand or artificially lengthens any of the player's throwing levers (fingers, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc.).

<font color="red"> B. Measuring Devices
1. Measuring devices such as rulers or measuring tapes may be used to ensure compliance with the Rules of Disc Golf.
2. The use of devices to determine distance to a target,</font>* <font color="red">landing zone, or other object on the course, such as range finders or GPS systems, is prohibited.

C.</font> A player shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if, during any portion of a round, he or she is observed by two players or an official using or carrying an artificial device that is determined by the director to violate section 802.04 A <font color="red"> or 802.04 B</font>. A player who uses an artificial device after it has been determined by the director to be in violation of 802.04 A <font color="red"> or 802.04 B</font> has also violated 804.05 A (3) and shall be penalized accordingly.

-----

* The meaning of "target" needs to be clarified and a definition added to the Glossary (see this thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=18079&Searchpage=0&Main=18079&Search=true&#Post18079)).

how do ya know who installed them?

As with all matters relating to tournament play, if you're not sure, ask at the Players Meeting. :D

[neonnoodle]

This would seem like a good revision. You should shoot a copy off to the PDGA RC for their consideration.

As for why the PDGA RC should be informed of this discussion, let's just say, "BECAUSE THEY WRITE OUR RULES!"

Good grief!

[krupicka]

Part C would need to be cleaned up w/ regards to "carrying an artificial device" as the reading would imply sometimes its legal to carry a tape measure and sometimes not. Depends on the intent.

Were you carrying the tape measure to determine how far the target is, if your disc is above 2m, or in my case to pull discs down out of trees that are out of my reach? A good steel tape measure is very handy for many more things than measuring.

#2 says that you cannot measure to the target. This would prevent someone from measuring to determine if a player can follow thru after they throw (putt-jump style, for example).

[Jake L]

B. Measuring Devices
1. Measuring devices such as rulers or measuring tapes may be used to ensure compliance with the Rules of Disc Golf.

[sandalman]

what, no one for scrapping the rule completely? my feeling is that if someone is so good that knowing they have 305' instead of 298' to the pin, then they are gonna kick my butt anyways. (conversely, there's more than few players that are gonna pull out their rangefinder, portable gps, etc, take a reading, and then shank into schule 40 feet short anyway :D)

whats the big deal about rangefinders?

[neonnoodle]

It's not bad Pat, but I think it is warranted when it is a device that is not readily available to all competitors equally (cost). Tee signs and 300 foot posts are there for everyone to use.

[ck34]

It's also not just the rangefinder cost either. If only one player is carrying one and is willing to share, rounds would take longer with players passing it around across fairways.

what, no one for scrapping the rule completely?

whats the big deal about rangefinders?




Unless I am missing something, I am for scrapping the rule altogether. Evolution has trained our eyes and brains to estimate distances and having a linear number isn't really any advantage in my opinion. With rules the simpler the better, and if a rule can be scrapped without a problem let's do it.

Maybe the problem is that a person obsessed with the distance will take a lot of time measuring every shot?

[neonnoodle]

Rob, I would agree that in general simpler is better, but I find some good reasons for restricting the use of such devices for the described purpose. 2 of which have just recently been covered.

It is not like a rule that adds 3 paragraphs where none are needed...(2 meter, Stance or Holing Out) :D

[sandalman]

taking too much time to arrive at your lie because you're passing around rangefinders from fairway to fairway falls under other jurisdiction. same as taking too long at a pee break, refilling water bottles, admiring the hornet's nest in the oak tree, and a litany of other actions.

if the reason we write the rule is to prevent some hypothetical action from occuring, at best it is a bad rule. at worst, it is hopelessly incomplete.

my final vote is for scrapping it altogether. if it stays, rewording along the lines of what has been proposed here is required. but it should go. put me on the RC and i will work day and nite until its accomplished /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[neonnoodle]

taking too much time to arrive at your lie because you're passing around rangefinders from fairway to fairway falls under other jurisdiction. Same as taking too long at a pee break, refilling water bottles, admiring the hornet's nest in the oak tree, and a litany of other actions.

if the reason we write the rule is to prevent some hypothetical action from occurring, at best it is a bad rule. at worst, it is hopelessly incomplete.

my final vote is for scrapping it altogether. if it stays, rewording along the lines of what has been proposed here is required. but it should go. put me on the RC and i will work day and night until its accomplished /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Seems hardly worth all that trouble, (getting on the PDGA RC is like being appointed to the US Supreme Court, very difficult and rarer than an ace on a fly 18 course) particularly when it is easily understood in proper context (devices that aid in making a throw). I wish you luck in your life or death crusade though. LOL!

[ck34]

Access to equipment is also addressed in other rules. If we scrapped the rangefinder rule, should we also scrap the rule pertaining to PDGA approved discs having some minimum production run so in theory enough players have access to them?

[sandalman]

no. but neither should we add rules governing size and quality of umbrellas, carts, water coolers, retreiving rods and son on.

[neonnoodle]

no. but neither should we add rules governing size and quality of umbrellas, carts, water coolers, retreiving rods and son on.



Do any of those have anything directly to do with "aiding in throwing a disc"?

Pat, you do realize, don't you, that our rules were actually discussed and written by some pretty clever folk; and that they are actually quiet good? Obviously a minimalistic mantra was utilized or we'd need a second bag to lug it around the course.

Have you written to the PDGA RC yet? Carlton will answer you ASAP. I think I already asked them about this last year sometime and the answer was as I have presented.

[sandalman]

Do any of those have anything directly to do with "aiding in throwing a disc"?


holding a string to get the wind direction and speed also aids a disc being thrown byt that reasoning. but we dont legislate it. from the wording of the rule it seems clear that the original intent was aimed at the enhancement of body appendages used in the physical action of throwing. according to your current theory, a weather station on wheels is OK - even though it cost 5000usd. if your line of thinking is really what you mean, then your rule is inconsistant.


Pat, you do realize, don't you, that our rules were actually discussed and written by some pretty clever folk; and that they are actually quiet good?

nick, you do realize, don't you, that your comment is condescending and insulting, and unfortunately not unexepected.

[neonnoodle]

I disagree on both points.

[gnduke]

I have to agree with Pat. Knowing the exact distance is not a direct aid to the throw. Being a local and knowing that the Tee signs are off by 40' is a good thing to know, but still not a direct aid to the throw.

Having a cart with a cooler built in and not carrying a bag and extra water on your back all day is a definately a good thing during the fourth round of 100 degree disc golf in Texas on a long arm course with little shade. It is still not a direct aid to the throw.

What reason, other than wanting to emulate ball golf where exact distance is much more important, makes a range finder a bad thing on a disc golf course? And how many golfers would actually carry and use one if it were available? How many were seen prior to the rules change? Were the players that were using them dominating the competition?

[rhett]

I think of it as a time issue. People play slow in tourneys. Range finders will make it slower. Also, people do not call excessive time infractions against their opponents. It just doesn't happen, and dumping the "no range finder" rule and saying that it's covered by the time rule might be technically correct, but in reality it won't happen.

Illegal equipment, on the other hand, is something that people will call when it's obvious. You pull out an Aerobie during the round and people will call you on it. If range finders are explicitly illegal and you pull one out, people will actually call it (sometimes). Pull out a legal range finder and take 2 minutes and 15 seconds to make your throw and there will be no call.

Call me a realist. Or a pessimist. But that's how it is.

[gnduke]

That's what I think as well. The only reason it's a bad thing is the time issue.

[neonnoodle]

Related Perhaps:

I asked the RC if it was ok to use a monocular before throwing, because my eyesight is getting worse, and they said no problem. Clearly that is helping me to make my throw, right?

[gnduke]

No, nothing on your eye is assisting you to make your throw.

It is assisting you in deciding how to throw the hole. It would assist you in gathering information that could be useful to you in making a decision. Much the same as tossing loose grass into the air to judge the wind or walking to the end of the teeing area to see how firm or slick it is. None of these actions help you throw the disc, they help you decide how you would like to throw the disc.

B. Measuring Devices
1. Measuring devices such as rulers or measuring tapes may be used to ensure compliance with the Rules of Disc Golf.



Right. #1 and #2 are in direct conflict with each other. They would need to be rewritten in order to be usable. When you have two rules in conflict with each other there needs to be something that tells you which rule governs the situation. Either that or rewrite the rule so that they don't conflict.

[sandalman]

if the monocular has the ability to focus, then it can be used as a very effective range finder. regardless of the "ruling", this is in direct violation of the current rule.

[sandalman]

btw, this "can everyone afford it" argument is silly and should not be a viable defense or reason for a rule. if i stay in a nice suite at the hilton and get massages between rounds it provides me an advantage over those who pack 8 players into a motel 6 in the noisy part of town. if i have a driver take me the tourney's city the day before it starts i get an advantage over the guys leaving their house at 3AM to arrive 15 minutes before the players meeting. according to the "equal affordability" theory, no player may use a device that gtives them an advantage, if said device is not afforadable by some unspecified percentage of all players. thats crazy. and dont say i'm stretching the theory. i wasnt the one who suggested it. i'm just saying if the theory is valid (it isnt) then it must be applied consistantly or the rules suffer from lack of logical integrity.

I asked the RC if it was ok to use a monocular before throwing, because my eyesight is getting worse, and they said no problem. Clearly that is helping me to make my throw, right?

I can do you one better, Nick.

Without glasses or contact lenses, I am borderline legally blind. If someone were to hand me a disc and ask me what it was, I would have to hold it 6-8" in front of my face in order to read the hotstamp, and even with glasses, I have a hard time identifying someone who is standing much more than 100' away. Obviously, without glasses, I would not be able to play disc golf since I would not be able to see the basket from the teepad.

So, are my eyeglasses/contact lenses "artificial devices" that "assist in making a throw", and therefore prohibited; or are they "medical items," and therefore permissible?

I invite anyone who is inclined to argue that they are prohibited to come to Durham, NC and play a friendly round with me. I will not wear my glasses/contacts on the condition that you accept full moral and financial respobsibility for any injuries you receive because I hit you with a disc because I couldn't see you or figure out where I should be throwing. :D

btw, this "can everyone afford it" argument is silly and should not be a viable defense or reason for a rule. if i stay in a nice suite at the hilton and get massages between rounds it provides me an advantage over those who pack 8 players into a motel 6 in the noisy part of town. if i have a driver take me the tourney's city the day before it starts i get an advantage over the guys leaving their house at 3AM to arrive 15 minutes before the players meeting. according to the "equal affordability" theory, no player may use a device that gtives them an advantage, if said device is not afforadable by some unspecified percentage of all players. thats crazy. and dont say i'm stretching the theory. i wasnt the one who suggested it. i'm just saying if the theory is valid (it isnt) then it must be applied consistantly or the rules suffer from lack of logical integrity.



I agree. I spent a little over $200 on the ball golf cart that I bought for disc golf. The conversion frame I built myself, but parts probably ran me another $25. Would someone say that I couldn't use my cart because not everyone can afford one? That is silly.

[neonnoodle]

Great! So has anyone emailed the PDGA Rules Committee about this yet?

So, are my eyeglasses/contact lenses "artificial devices" that "assist in making a throw", and therefore prohibited



Ahh, it seems like only 4 1/2 years ago, on rec.sport.disc:

From: Theo Pozzy (*n*o*s*p*a*m*tpozzy@gaia.com)
Subject: <DG> Are range finders allowed during disc golf tournaments (PDGA)?

I was curious - does anyone know if it's legal to use one of the ball golf
laser range finders (binocular-like devices made by Bushnell) during a PDGA
tournament? I haven't taken the time to re-read the PDGA rules, but I
thought some PDGA official monitoring this newsgroup might know the answer.

Thanks,
Theo Pozzy
PDGA #14166


From: Conrad Damon (damon@stanford.edu)
The use of range finders is currently being discussed by the rules
committee. My opinion is that their use should not be allowed in
tournaments. A broad interpretation of 802.04.A could cover that:
802.04 Artificial Devices:
[.....]


Bruce Burkhalter <cheese@austin.rr.com> wrote:
A towel is an artificial device that assists in making a throw because
you can use it to wipe a hunk of mud off of your disc to make it fly
farther.


From: Rodney (rodney@worf.netins.net)
Also, more closely related to range finders, you'd have to eliminate
contact lenses and prescription glasses, for as long as we're making
interpretations this wide, I think both of these would fall under
"devices".

Complete Thread here, with all the usual suspects. (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=867i2l02681%40enews3.newsguy.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgroup%253Arec.sport.disc%2520curious% 2520range%2520finders%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg)

[neonnoodle]

Indeed. Silly rule, by this logic clothes could be said to aid in making a throw, shielding us from the embarrassment of our bellies and little noodles. Forget about prosthetics for throwing a disc longer, how about for …

[sandalman]

Great! So has anyone emailed the PDGA Rules Committee about this yet?

no nick, its so close to the end of the month we all thought we'd rely on your eloquence when you get a fresh quota :D

[neonnoodle]

Great! So has anyone emailed the PDGA Rules Committee about this yet?

no nick, its so close to the end of the month we all thought we'd rely on your eloquence when you get a fresh quota :D



Hey! I invite any and all to join me on my sheet of thin ice. C'mon!

[sandalman]

awright awright... i just sent a note to the RC.

[magilla]

I spent a little over $200 on the ball golf cart that I bought for disc golf. The conversion frame I built myself, but parts probably ran me another $25. Would someone say that I couldn't use my cart because not everyone can afford one? That is silly.



No Silly is, warning the group on the next fairway because someones "Cart" was making a noise :p I witnessed this following some Masters around "Big Creek"

Access to equipment is also addressed in other rules. If we scrapped the rangefinder rule, should we also scrap the rule pertaining to PDGA approved discs having some minimum production run so in theory enough players have access to them?



No because you're required to use at least one approved disc to play the game. All other equipment/gear is compleltely optional (two legal discs, or one disc and one mini).

...except collared/sleeved shirts at big events, oh and I suppose some clothing is required by law at most courses.


And yes, glasses/contacts are medical devices. I suppose Nick's monocular is getting grouped into that category as well.

[ching_lizard]

This interesting mis-interpretation of the rule came up multiple times during the course of this year's worlds:

A player drives. Disc lands next to a large, detached dead tree branch. Tree branch which extends in front of thrower's lie inhibits the player from taking the stance that he/she wants. Player wants to move the branch so he/she can take a comfortable stance behind their lie.

What is the ruling?

The player may not move any obstacle between their lie and the target. Period.

Many players want to think that because the branch is dead and detached that it is legal for them to move it. (Indeed one unlucky player received a penalty stroke for it.) I was surprised at how many players think that it is okay to do so for the sake of obtaining a comfortable stance.

Kenny asked me if he could move such a branch during the semi-finals round. I said no. He objected because it prevented him from taking an easier stance, but the rules below clearly state two things: you get no relief from casual obstacles (except when it is known that the branch has fallen during the round) and you must choose a stance that creates the least disturbance to any obstacle on the course.

Nothing like feeling a little pressure when there are a few hundred spectators in the gallery observing that you and Kenny aren't agreeing about something! :D:D

[ching_lizard]

Oops! Forgot to include the applicable rules quotation:

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance
which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as
allowed for casual obstacles by 803.04 C. No relief is granted from park
equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc.) as they are
considered part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, a player may
not move an obstacle (or hold it back or bend it) in order to make room
for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make
incidental movement of an obstacle.
E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for
violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

[hitec100]

This interesting mis-interpretation of the rule came up multiple times during the course of this year's worlds:

A player drives. Disc lands next to a large, detached dead tree branch. Tree branch which extends in front of thrower's lie inhibits the player from taking the stance that he/she wants. Player wants to move the branch so he/she can take a comfortable stance behind their lie.

What is the ruling?

The player may not move any obstacle between their lie and the target. Period.

Many players want to think that because the branch is dead and detached that it is legal for them to move it. (Indeed one unlucky player received a penalty stroke for it.) I was surprised at how many players think that it is okay to do so for the sake of obtaining a comfortable stance.

Kenny asked me if he could move such a branch during the semi-finals round. I said no. He objected because it prevented him from taking an easier stance, but the rules below clearly state two things: you get no relief from casual obstacles (except when it is known that the branch has fallen during the round) and you must choose a stance that creates the least disturbance to any obstacle on the course.



Actually, I think this part of the 803.04 rule is more telling in this situation:


C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The type of relief a player may obtain is based on the location of the obstacle and is limited as follows:
(1) Casual obstacles between the lie and the hole: No relief is granted except for obstacles which became a factor during the round as described by 803.04 B.
(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.
(3) Casual obstacles to a run up: The player may move the obstacle. No other relief is provided.

D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official.



So here's the deal. It sounds like what you're describing is a casual obstacle that's BOTH between the lie and the hole AND an obstacle to stance. So what rule prevails?

I think the answer is 803.04 D. When it's unclear, majority rules or an official decides. But I think there's an argument to be made that the obstacle to stance can take precedence. Would you also argue that a casual obstacle in a run-up can't be moved if part of it extended in front of the lie?

[gnduke]

This has been discussed here before for months. 803.04 gives very limited relief depending on circumstances. No rule takes precedence, but no rule can be violated. Any relief granted must satisfy each rule individually. If it fails to pass any rule, the relief may not be granted.

The first condition, C.1 specifies that nothing between the lie and the hole can be moved unless it is known to have become a factor during the round.

The second condition, C.2 allows for relief from casual obstacles (listed above, and the dead unattached branch qualifies as a casual obstacle). The first part of the rule requires that it be practical to move the obstacle. Rule C.1 makes it impractical (against the rules) to move the obstacle. The other relief granted by this rule is to mark within 5 meters on LOP.

The third condition, C.3 also does not apply to the marking of the lie, and can not be used to allow movement of an obstacle that would fail rule 3.1.

Basically, in order for anything to be moved it has to pass rules C.1 & C.2. Rule C.3 applies to obstacles to run-up, but still can not allow rules C.1 or C.2 to be broken.

Since nothing between the lie and the hole can be moved without violating C.1, nothing between the lie and hole can be moved - unless it is known to have become a factor during the round.

[hitec100]

The second condition, C.2 allows for relief from casual obstacles (listed above, and the dead unattached branch qualifies as a casual obstacle). The first part of the rule requires that it be practical to move the obstacle. Rule C.1 makes it impractical (against the rules) to move the obstacle. The other relief granted by this rule is to mark within 5 meters on LOP.



That's my point. If you can't move the obstacle, as per 803.04 C.1, but it is an obstacle to stance, then per 803.04 C.2, you can move your lie. I don't understand why moving one's lie wasn't considered a solution to what was posted above. I think if it's somehow unclear to the group that this can be done, then 803.04 D pops up and majority rules or an official decides.

[hitec100]

I still would like to know what would happen if you had an obstacle to a run-up and part of it was between your lie and the hole. In that case, would the 803.05 Unsafe Lie rule pop up? But then how does that square with gnduke's statement that no rules take precedence and no rules can be violated? Wouldn't calling on the Unsafe-Lie rule mean that 803.05 is taking precedence over 803.04?

[gnduke]

Invoking 803.05 in no way allows a player to violate any part of 803.04. You are not allowed to take an unsafe lie if doing so would violate any part of 803.04. They are different rules, and one does not allow you to break the other.

Using 803.05 for the case of a dead branch where part of it is between the lie and the hole, should mean that the player attempted to relocate the lie within 5 meters along LOP and was unable to find a suitable lie. He could then declare an unsafe lie (with a 1 stroke penalty) and look within 5 meters no closer to the hole for a suitable lie. If still unable to find a suitable lie, he could then take a 2 stroke penalty and move the lie anywhere as long as it was no closer to the hole.

The difference being the penalty strokes added. The player is still unable to move the obstacle if it remains between the lie and the hole.

You just gave me a headache Gary :D

[neonnoodle]

From our Rules Q & As:


Rule Question: Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path
Question: Steve throws his drive under a large fallen tree branch. The branch is clearly dead and unattached from the tree it formerly came from. Steve knows that he can normally move casual obstacles that interfere with his stance, throwing motion, and/or run-up under PDGA rule 803.04c2 and 803.04c3. However, the branch is quite large, and part of the branch sticks up in the air, and creates an obstacle between Steve's lie and the hole. If Steve were to move the branch, he would create an easier path to the hole for himself by displacing the obstacle. Can Steve legally move this branch?
Applicable Rules:
803:04 Obstacles and Relief

Answer: No. It is the interpretation of the rules committee that PDGA rule 803.04c(1) takes precedence here. No relief is granted from casual obstacles between the lie and the hole. Steve needs to avoid throwing next to such obstacles if he doesn't want to have to negotiate them! If the branch is such that it is impractical for Steve to take a stance, then Steve can relocate his lie on the line of play, up to 5 meters back with no penalty. Steve could also declare an unsafe lie under 803.05.

Generally, the player gets the benefit of the doubt in cases where two possible rulings have approximately equal weight. In this case, it appears that either the rule concerning "obstacles to stance" or the rule concerning "obstacles between the lie and the hole" could be applied. Because the player has the option to move back with no penalty, the stricter interpretation of the rule was chosen.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

Dr. Rick Voakes
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Carlton Howard




This is something I believe most players do not know. Adding to this is the following situation:

Player arrives at their lie. the disc rests on a few small twigs, they reach down to mark their lie with the mini, carefully removing the sticks to place the mini flush on the playing surface. Legal?

Not according to this. In order to move any casual obstacles to stance they would have to be completely behind the lie.
The Rulebook could be more emphatic. I have heard rumor that this rule will become quite different in the next rules revision; along the lines of disallowing ANY removal of casual obstacles, whether in front of or behind your lie.


Steve needs to avoid throwing next to such obstacles if he doesn't want to have to negotiate them!



I think such a development is good for a number of reasons.

[hitec100]

However, the branch is quite large, and part of the branch sticks up in the air, and creates an obstacle between Steve's lie and the hole. If Steve were to move the branch, he would create an easier path to the hole for himself by displacing the obstacle.



Now this is interesting. I'd previously assumed that an obstacle between the lie and the hole could be such even if it weren't in the way of the flight path. But part of a branch lying on the ground between the lie and the hole, not affecting the throw to the hole, is NOT an obstacle between the lie and the hole, from what I read here. The branch has to stick up in the air or in some other way impede the flight path.

So I assume from that if a branch on the ground is affecting your stance or run-up, even if part of it is in front of the lie, as long as it's lying flat on the ground, you can move it. Does that sound right?

By the way, gnduke, in the case of invoking 803.05, I was bringing that up for my run-up question, not the stance violation. For the run-up obstacle, you have no option to move your lie within 5 meters along the line of play. If you do move your lie per 803.04 C.2, I guess that means you are proscribed from doing a run-up.

I agree with Nick -- a simplification of this rule is in order. Just don't move the obstacle or your lie, unless invoking 803.05, where penalties apply.

[neonnoodle]

Paul,

I don't believe it has to be an obstacle to your flight path or on the line of play. You simply may not move anything in front of your lie regardless of whether or not it extends back into your stance. (This too would need to be clarified. Could you write to the PDGA RC to ask which is the case? Their contact info is in the "Contact" link here at PDGA.com.)

If this is the case, and I think it is, there is widespread abuse of this rule going on and a larger than average educational campaign needs to take place, and soon.

[Sharky]

Does 803.04 c(2) allow one to obtain free (no penalty) relief if one throws into a nasty sticker bush but there is a safe stance to throw from within 5 meters on the LOP?

[gnduke]

By the way, gnduke, in the case of invoking 803.05, I was bringing that up for my run-up question, not the stance violation. For the run-up obstacle, you have no option to move your lie within 5 meters along the line of play. If you do move your lie per 803.04 C.2, I guess that means you are proscribed from doing a run-up.



There are 2 parts to 803.04.C 1 & 2 are related to marking your lie, 3 is realted to the run-up. If the moving offending limb is not prevented by 803.04.C.1, then the relief allowed in 803.04.C.3 is to move the obstacle.

803.04.C.2 allows the lie to be moved due to impediments to stance or throwing motion. Of course this only applies to those things specifically listed as casual obstacles in 803.04.C: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round.

[sandalman]

You just gave me a headache Gary :D

his wife says that also :D

[sandalman]

i got an answer from the RC stating that the range finder rule wasnt really up for discussion. the email clarified that the real purpose of the rule is that being able to judge distances is part of what the sport is all about. it further notred that other DG-like sports (my wording) also ban range finders from competitive play.

given that reason, i wholeheartedly support the rule, although that puts us back into the re-wording realm.

of course, anything goes during practice rounds, so grab a pencil and paper and your favorite hightech measuring device, and have at it :)

[gnduke]

Does 803.04 c(2) allow one to obtain free (no penalty) relief if one throws into a nasty sticker bush but there is a safe stance to throw from within 5 meters on the LOP?



Only if nasty sticker bushes has been added to the list of casual obstacles by the TD. :cool:

[baldguy]

while we're discussing rules, here's an interesting situation to ponder:

At this year's Live Oak Summer Open, the TD (hello, marsha ;) ) declared in the players' meeting that "all concrete on the course is OB." This was of note because there is a LOT of concrete on these courses.

Like most courses, the baskets in Live Oak, TX are sunk in the ground using concrete as a base. On one particular hole, the dirt around and under the basket had eroded enough to leave the concrete base completely exposed and raised about 2 inches above the "playing surface". During the second round of the first day, I threw an upshot which landed on that concrete base, placed just perfectly enough to be 100% surrounded by concrete. Of course it was a good laugh and the card did not call it OB, but it made me think...

If "all concrete" is OB, and the goals are sunk using concrete, does that mean that the concrete base, when exposed, creates an area of OB underneath the goal? Also, considering the rule interpretation of "a quarter inch under the dirt was asphalt, therefore the lie was OB" also extend this situation to ALL baskets sunk in concrete? a "vertical plane" straight up from that base would mean that any discs hung in the chains would be OB.

Of course this is a very off-the-wall way of interpreting the rules, and a TD would just be required to say something like "All concrete except that which is part of the goal assembly" in order to relieve any possible confusion. The reason I bring it up here is to make a point: Common sense HAS to override literal interpretation. The TD is always the last call on rule interpretation for a specific situation, so if your card can't gather enough common sense ( ;) ) then play a provisional shot and ask the TD later.

just kicking the bees' nest :D

[neonnoodle]

Does 803.04 c(2) allow one to obtain free (no penalty) relief if one throws into a nasty sticker bush but there is a safe stance to throw from within 5 meters on the LOP?



Only if nasty sticker bushes has been added to the list of casual obstacles by the TD. :cool:



Dear TDs,

Please be aware of and account for nasty obstacles such as huge pricker bushes and assign appropriate relief.

Thanks!

[gnduke]

The large Catcus plants have always been declared casual obstacles in San Saba and Wimberley.

The TDs should know the course and assign casual obstacle status to those places where trying to "play it where it lies" will likely result in injury.

[hitec100]

Great responses from both gnduke and Nick_Kight. I've learned a lot from this thread.

Nick, you suggested I send an email to the RC for clarification on the question of is an obstacle between the lie and the hole really an obstacle if it's not in the flight path, merely lying flat on the ground. I expect they'll come back saying it is an obstacle, in the flight path or not (what is a flight path anyway if you can't positively guarantee your disc will never slip out of your hand when you throw and hit the obstacle on the ground?), but I will send the email and see.

[neonnoodle]

Great responses from both gnduke and Nick_Kight. I've learned a lot from this thread.

Nick, you suggested I send an email to the RC for clarification on the question of is an obstacle between the lie and the hole really an obstacle if it's not in the flight path, merely lying flat on the ground. I expect they'll come back saying it is an obstacle, in the flight path or not (what is a flight path anyway if you can't positively guarantee your disc will never slip out of your hand when you throw and hit the obstacle on the ground?), but I will send the email and see.



Ask if you can share their answer and share it, ok?

I think you are right though about the obstacle not needing to be in the flight path (it's not like we are throwing balls that have very little variation in how they fly... in the right wind you could throw a disc away from the target and it would fly there anyway.). The killer in this is the thing about not being able, under our rules to move little sticks (or big) if any part of them extend in front of the lie. I sincerely doubt that most players have known or played by this understanding; and it would seem to make a BIG difference.

Make sure you check on the relief in such situations ok?

[hitec100]

Well, I got an answer from Carlton Howard on the Rules Committee, but not permission (yet) for posting the email verbatim.

If I can paraphrase for now, he said that basically an obstacle between the lie and the hole blocks the path to the hole. And that path may (or may not) include the ground. For instance, a ground roller would include the ground.

I got from that in situations where a ground roller wasn't feasible, then perhaps a branch flat on the ground is not an obstacle and can be moved if it impedes the stance or run-up. But he said generally it depends on the interpretation of the group and/or officials and what they deem to be a violation of the rule (sounds like 803.04 D to me).

Basically, it's not as clear-cut as we'd like it to be. A branch may or may not be moved, depending on if it is ruled an obstacle between the lie and hole, which is only true if it somehow obstructs one of the ways in which a disc may be thrown to the hole (in the air or as a roller on the ground). I think Carlton was leaning toward making the rule more clear-cut, as we'd all like, but that's where it is right now.

If I get permission to post the email verbatim, I will, and y'all can see if I interpreted what he said correctly.

[hitec100]

Well, interestingly, instead of getting permission to post the email, I was told please to tell the group to refer to the Rules Q & A. Also told that most obstacle issues are judgment calls, and unless you're there with the players, looking at the obstacle in question, it can be difficult to make a ruling.

Again, I'm hearing from the RC that the 803.04 rule is not as clear-cut as some might think and requires consideration from the group when it's not clear if an object is an obstacle or not.

I think some of us favor a stricter interpretation, and see anything between the lie and the hole as an obstacle, whether it is likely to impede the throw or not. And some of us favor a more lenient approach and want to rule an object an obstacle between the lie and the hole only if it is truly in the way of a throw. My only problem with this variation in judgment is that different cards will have different standards of leniency, so that throughout a tournament, some may get off easy, while others won't. But that's part of the sport, I guess.

[neonnoodle]

D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official.

E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

If a player is observed moving an object without group or official determination is that a violation.

I provided this possible rewrite to the rule: (Have at it...)

Players should not be doing course maintenance during rounds. Watching players heave huge piles of sticks and logs, or rocks, all over the place to clear their lie has always seemed VERY wrong to me. As you say, that stuff was there before the player threw, if they don’t like the footing there then DON’T THROW THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you do, it is on you to deal with it.

For this to be a rule, we need a definition, a better definition, of casual obstacles that can always be moved when taking a stance.

OR (I like this better)
803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Don’t move nuttin’! Whether designated casual or not.
B. Relocate the lie only if in the judgment of the majority of the group or an official taking a legal stance and making the throw would pose undue likely physically harm the player or the course obstacle. There are only two available methods of relief:
1) TD Designated Casual Obstacles: Relocate the player's lie to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.
2) Undesignated Obstacles: The player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.
C. Obstacles to a run up: No other relief is provided.
D. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.
E. A player who purposely damages (such as in taking a stance and making a throw) anything on the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with section 804.05 A (2).

[hitec100]

I like the latter set of rewritten rules. Stricter rules for obstacles/lies are preferable (in my opinion) to vague rules that require on-the-spot interpretation.

[ching_lizard]

I agree - I like the re-written/clarified version of the rule...it leaves less to interpretation.

I think that many players feel like they always have a right to a good stance. This is false! If the player wanted a good stance then the player should've thrown in the middle of the fairway.