Run up area?

[JenniferB]

803.05 Obstacles and Relief ...B. Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are in the stance or run-up area: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree ...

Does "run up area" include a run through? I encounter a LOT of players who insist that the rule change was intended to allow people to move debris directly in front of the lie because it is in the "run up area," in that the debris makes it unsafe to run through past the lie. Others say that players are not entitled to a run through. I couldn't find "run up area" in the definitions section.

I've also encountered people who say that any debris entirely in front of the lie cannot be moved, but insist that if any part of it is behind the lie (i.e., further from the hole than the rear of the marker disc AKA outside the circle on which the lie resides), then it can be moved, even if it is not an obstacle to their run up or stance. For example, a large branch in front of the lie has a small branch extending behind the circle twenty feet to the side of the lie, where it is not an obstacle to any reasonable run up, but could theoretically be an obstacle to a crazy runup from twenty feet away to the side and around the circle.



I've also seen people think they can move any debris once it is behind their lie. For example, a big branch falls in the fairway behind a group, and they move it off the fairway for the next group, even though it is not in their stance or runup area. Surely that's a rule violation, but shouldn't it be allowed? Does it matter if they haven't all holed out yet? Could the debris be within their theoretical run up area, even if they don't choose to use that area for a run up?

So what does "run up area" mean?

[cgkdisc]

No moving anything completely in front of the lie except people and players' equipment. If any part of a casual obstacle is both in front and behind the lie, it can only be moved if it is in the stance or the player's runup, not just off to the side. Player can have incidental contact with items in front of the lie only as part of a follow-thru.

[JenniferB]

OK, so let's say the player says the obstacle is in the runup and moves it, and then says he decided to do a different runup, or not to run up. Is there a penalty? Can he avoid the penalty if he moves the obstacle back before the throw?

[cgkdisc]

Depends. If the group thinks the player was "gaming" the rules you can give a courtesy warning. It's not that big of a deal for objects behind the lie. I wouldn't apply the 1-throw penalty in 802.05E in this case.

[JenniferB]

Allright. For further discussion, I'd just like to point out that the rule no longer says anything about in front of or behind the lie. There seems to be a perception that it matters whether the object is completely or partially in front of the lie because the rule used to state, iirc, that an object could not be moved if any part of it was closer to the basket target than the lie. Now the rule just says in the stance or run up area. But whose to say a run up cannot start in front of the players lie? Where does it say the runup must be toward the target? Your own videos demonstrate a sideways walking putt that the RC voted was legal. So I suggest that some kind of addition be made to the FAQ to define runup area, becasue right now we have a ton of players saying that objects entirely in front of the lie can be moved now, and the rule leaves it up to a majority of the group. I like your interpretation, but we need more precision, because it seems like I'm exposed to frequent arguments over this business.

[cgkdisc]

Write to the RC. They won't read it here.

803.02 on Teeing off indirectly defines "running up" as being permitted behind the tee and the tee by definition is completely behind the "mark" for the throw. It doesn't specifically say you can't run up from in front of a lie but implies that by permitting running up from behind.

[jconnell]

Seems to me that if a player insists on running up to a lie from in front of it, then they should be allowed to clear their path as allowed in 803.05 B. It's unorthodox, but what the heck, there's nothing blatantly illegal about it provided they get all supporting points behind the mark including one on the LOP within 30cm of the marker upon release.

But if they clear in front of their lie under the auspices of intending to run up from in front, then they sure as heck better proceed with that unorthodox "run-up" in order to justify moving whatever they moved. If they were to turn around and "change their mind" and go with a more orthodox run-up/stance and turn the cleared area into a follow-through area, I'd call them for moving a non-casual obstacle(s) and assess the one-throw penalty indicated by 803.05 E.

Per the wording of the rule, players are entitled to a stance/run-up area free and clear of casual obstacles. What no one is ever entitled to is any kind of a follow-through area whatsoever. You have to take what you get. To try to sidestep that fact by pretending or claiming to want to do something unorthodox in order to give oneself something to which they are not entitled is tantamount to the rule book definition of cheating: a willful circumvention of the rules.

[bruceuk]

One of the proposed wording changes is to tweak this to "obstacles that are within or behind the lie"

[araydallas]

Originally Posted by jconnell

Seems to me that if a player insists on running up to a lie from in front of it, then they should be allowed to clear their path as allowed in 803.05 B. It's unorthodox, but what the heck, there's nothing blatantly illegal about it provided they get all supporting points behind the mark including one on the LOP within 30cm of the marker upon release.

But if they clear in front of their lie under the auspices of intending to run up from in front, then they sure as heck better proceed with that unorthodox "run-up" in order to justify moving whatever they moved. If they were to turn around and "change their mind" and go with a more orthodox run-up/stance and turn the cleared area into a follow-through area, I'd call them for moving a non-casual obstacle(s) and assess the one-throw penalty indicated by 803.05 E.

Per the wording of the rule, players are entitled to a stance/run-up area free and clear of casual obstacles. What no one is ever entitled to is any kind of a follow-through area whatsoever. You have to take what you get. To try to sidestep that fact by pretending or claiming to want to do something unorthodox in order to give oneself something to which they are not entitled is tantamount to the rule book definition of cheating: a willful circumvention of the rules.

great points! And, for me, not for technicalities' sake, but for realistically applying the rule, if that player has a typical "3+ or 5+ run-up from behind the marker/tee" on every shot throughout the day, and then suddenly has an "unorthodox run up from in front" just when there lies an obstacle in front, then I'd probably call him on it, because he's also gaming the rule. Everything is subject to Rule of Fairness. If he had been doing a run up from in front all the time, then I'd say no big deal. I actually know a guy who has a run-up 90+% of the time that starts about 2-3 feet in front and 5-6 feet to the right of the tee/marker. If you do that every time, then the intent (to me) IS that he get to move the branch that's in his "every time" run-up.

[JenniferB]

I disagree with a rule that would allow someone to perform a backwards runup, but penalize them for pausing or running in a circle back forward. I also think that requiring a consistently backwards runnup for legality is like requiring a consistently sideways walking put for legality. It's either legal or it's not.

Bruce's observation regarding a suggested change leads to an objectively perceptible bright line rule that everyone can agree on, without relying on a jury trial by a group of one's peers every time there is disagreement within that same group. Let's do the bright line rule, please.

[Paul Taylor]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

I disagree with a rule that would allow someone to perform a backwards runup, but penalize them for pausing or running in a circle back forward. I also think that requiring a consistently backwards runnup for legality is like requiring a consistently sideways walking put for legality. It's either legal or it's not.

Bruce's observation regarding a suggested change leads to an objectively perceptible bright line rule that everyone can agree on, without relying on a jury trial by a group of one's peers every time there is disagreement within that same group. Let's do the bright line rule, please.

REALLY - you must be a lawyer, because if you find a loophole in everything in the rules, you take the fun out of the game.

IT's called gaming, IT's called cheating.

[jconnell]

As written, the rule does not allow for the moving of any obstacles that are not in a player's stance or run-up area. Run-up ends with the release of the disc, because what are you running up to other than the release of the disc? Since release of the disc must be done behind the mark to be legal, it would follow that a stance/run-up area must also be behind the mark. Hence obstacles in front of the mark are ostensibly off-limits.

In trying to make an argument that the current rule doesn't prohibit moving obstacles in front of the marker, Jennifer suggested that one could run up from in front of a marker. It's extremely unorthodox and extremely unlikely to occur very often, but such a run-up (in fact, any kind of run-up at all) would not be illegal provided all supporting points end up behind the mark at the time of release.

My point is that if a player tried to use such an argument to game the rules and justify clearing obstacles in front of their mark, the player would actually have to run up through the cleared area on that shot to be technically legal. Because, again, if they're not running up through or taking a stance in the specific area, the rules prohibit moving obstacles within the specific area. It's not that complicated.


I don't think the rule really needs any clarification unless we're assuming that everyone reading it is entirely illogical. However, I think if it were changed, the simplest way to do it would be to remove the term "run-up area" altogether. If an obstacle is not in a player's stance, it can't be moved, period. No grey areas involving run-ups or run-backs or run-arounds or whatever.

[araydallas]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

I disagree with a rule that would allow someone to perform a backwards runup, but penalize them for pausing or running in a circle back forward. I also think that requiring a consistently backwards runnup for legality is like requiring a consistently sideways walking put for legality. It's either legal or it's not.

Maybe I didn't clarify. I didn't mean the person had to perform a backwards run up and still follow through backwards. The guy I was talking about actually runs (or steps) from R to L and down as he's moving onto the tee pad, then follows through forward from inside the tee box. Yes, it seemed real unorthodox the first time I saw it ... but he does that virtually 95% of the time. If he had told me that the dead branch 1 foot in front and 1 foot to the right of the tee pad was in his run up, I'd believe him -- because he runs "up" that way every time. (I'm speaking practically applying the intent here.) There's no penalty for following through forward. That's his "normal" run-up. Not trying to add to the rule at all, just interpreting based on what I think the intent is. And no it wouldn't preclude him from occassionally using a different run up or none at all.

Originally Posted by jconnell

As written, the rule does not allow for the moving of any obstacles that are not in a player's stance or run-up area. Run-up ends with the release of the disc, because what are you running up to other than the release of the disc? Since release of the disc must be done behind the mark to be legal, it would follow that a stance/run-up area must also be behind the mark. Hence obstacles in front of the mark are ostensibly off-limits.

In trying to make an argument that the current rule doesn't prohibit moving obstacles in front of the marker, Jennifer suggested that one could run up from in front of a marker. It's extremely unorthodox and extremely unlikely to occur very often, but such a run-up (in fact, any kind of run-up at all) would not be illegal provided all supporting points end up behind the mark at the time of release.

My point is that if a player tried to use such an argument to game the rules and justify clearing obstacles in front of their mark, the player would actually have to run up through the cleared area on that shot to be technically legal. Because, again, if they're not running up through or taking a stance in the specific area, the rules prohibit moving obstacles within the specific area. It's not that complicated.


I don't think the rule really needs any clarification unless we're assuming that everyone reading it is entirely illogical. However, I think if it were changed, the simplest way to do it would be to remove the term "run-up area" altogether. If an obstacle is not in a player's stance, it can't be moved, period. No grey areas involving run-ups or run-backs or run-arounds or whatever.

I think I agree with most of that. To me, it has to be based upon a normal run up -- normal for the player.

[JenniferB]

Originally Posted by Paul Taylor

REALLY - you must be a lawyer, because if you find a loophole in everything in the rules, you take the fun out of the game.

IT's called gaming, IT's called cheating.

Yep. I'm a lawyer. You got me.

If these rules were statutes, then one could cry foul at an interpretation of "in the the runup area" as "anywhere on the course," because it basically reads the clause out of the rule. That's not permitted in a court of law.

However, the basic problem I have with the rule is that it is such a fuzzy standard, and it is left up to the group to decide whether an obstacle is "in the stance or runup area." There's nothing there to rely on to say that an object completely beyond the player's lie cannot be moved if the majority of the group agrees that it's allowed.

What we get, and what I'm seeing, are some very different interpretations of the rule from person to person, and several heated arguments. Now THAT takes the fun out of the game.

[PhattD]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

Yep. I'm a lawyer. You got me.

If these rules were statutes, then one could cry foul at an interpretation of "in the the runup area" as "anywhere on the course," because it basically reads the clause out of the rule. That's not permitted in a court of law.

However, the basic problem I have with the rule is that it is such a fuzzy standard, and it is left up to the group to decide whether an obstacle is "in the stance or runup area." There's nothing there to rely on to say that an object completely beyond the player's lie cannot be moved if the majority of the group agrees that it's allowed.

What we get, and what I'm seeing, are some very different interpretations of the rule from person to person, and several heated arguments. Now THAT takes the fun out of the game.

It doesn't seem fuzzy to me at all. Something is either in the way of your run up or it is not. Anyone that tries to claim that something in front of their lie is in the way is just trying to game the system. If you can't get a group of adults together that won't get into a heated argument over this rule the problem is with the group of "adults" not the rule.

If you want to argue that it is possible for someone to have an unorthodox run up that would allow them to move obstacles in front of their lie, fine I agree it's technically possible. Show me one person that has this style of run up and I'll consider allowing you to move an obstacle in front of your lie, but even then it would be contingent on you using that run up for your throw.

I think anyone trying to argue that this rule allows you to move things wholly in front of their lie is being willfully dishonest because no "reasonable" person would classify such an obstacle as "in their stance or run up". As a lawyer you should understand the "reasonable person" criteria.

[JenniferB]

Originally Posted by PhattD

I think anyone trying to argue that this rule allows you to move things wholly in front of their lie is being willfully dishonest because no "reasonable" person would classify such an obstacle as "in their stance or run up". As a lawyer you should understand the "reasonable person" criteria.

The reasonable person standard is for a jury of 12 disinterested parties. In discgolf, you leave it up to 4 players, all of whom are interested parties. I don't like that.

And I think you fail to realize just how widespread the belief has become in certain parts that the rule change allows players to move obstacles wholly in front of their lie. The typical line is that they changed the rules for safety concerns, and that includes making the run through safer.

[PhattD]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

The reasonable person standard is for a jury of 12 disinterested parties. In discgolf, you leave it up to 4 players, all of whom are interested parties. I don't like that.

And I think you fail to realize just how widespread the belief has become in certain parts that the rule change allows players to move obstacles wholly in front of their lie. The typical line is that they changed the rules for safety concerns, and that includes making the run through safer.

Anybody can make up imaginary rules. Have them point to the rule that allows them to move obstacles that are not in their stance or run up. No reasonable person would argue that this rule:

A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are in the stance or run-up area:

means you could move something that is not in your stance or run up area.

If there is some other rule in the book that is leading you to that conclusion please point it out. If you can't then quit trying to move objects that aren't in your stance or run up area. If it's someone you're playing with have the rule book with you and point it out to them. If they get mad let them do it and report to the TD after the round. If it's a casual round just let them do whatever they want or quit playing with them.

[JoakimBL]

Could this not be easily fixed by defining "run up area"? If that definition the either includes or excludes areas in front of the lie, then there really isn't any points to argue.
But maybe I'm missing something, because I am struggling to think of which objects people are trying to move that have any significant impact on the throw, using this rule.

[krupicka]

This could be more easily fixed by not kowtowing to those that feel they should expect a clean run-up. Just remove the whole mention of run-up area from the rule.

[JenniferB]

JoakimBL and Krupicka both offer satisfactory solutions. I back either of these solutions.