Rule question

[lockhartkent]

Can you hang onto a tree like on a steep bank for example. As long as you are not moving any branches between you and the hole? I know you can't change the line to the hole but can you hold on to the trunk for balance as long as it does not change the line of play?

Thanks Kent

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by lockhartkent

Can you hang onto a tree like on a steep bank for example. As long as you are not moving any branches between you and the hole? I know you can't change the line to the hole but can you hold on to the trunk for balance as long as it does not change the line of play?

Thanks Kent

So long as the tree is not closer to the hole than your mark and it is solid enough not to move/bend under your weight, yes you can hang onto a tree for balance.

[cgkdisc]

You can even have someone behind you (ex. caddy) hold your hand for support while throwing.

[lockhartkent]

Thanks that is what I thought. Got into it with a guy today in casual play, and just wanted to clarify Before it happens in a tour situation. Thanks again

[Hoser]

Re Post #3:

You can even have someone behind you (ex. caddy) hold your hand for support while throwing.

Chuck, your scenario may need a Q&A ruling by the RC. The committee will be interpreting the following rules, to make their ruling:



803.01 General.

A. Players shall play the course as they find it.

If you let someone support you as you throw, you’re changing the course from “as you find it.” That change of the course may expand your strategy options, your range of motion, your confidence or comfort to stand and throw, and your opportunity to score low.

Under the rules of play, the only penalty you can get for not playing the course as you find it would be DQ for cheating: 804.05A(3).

803.04 Stance, subsequent to teeing off.

C. [On putts within 10M] The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

If the other person’s support aids your balance after you release your putt, it may bring into question whether you are demonstrating full control of balance before you advance toward the hole.

803.05 Obstacles and relief.

A. A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle. It is legal for a player’s throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.

The first sentence uses the word “stance” in an unclear way. As I’ve suggested on the “2011 Rules Update” thread (Post # 86), 803.05A is unclear about whether your stance in relation to obstacles is your body’s position at the instant you release your flight, or your body’s position just before you start your throwing motion.

If the latter is true (which is how disc golfers usually play) then in Chuck’s scenario, the thrower will be okay if, just before the throwing motion starts, his stance isn’t moving the supporting person at all. Then if the thrower cause “incidental movement” (whatever the heck that it) of the supporter’s position during the throwing motion, no problem.

But if the former is true, then the thrower is not allowed to shift his caddy’s position at all via the throwing motion, because that would violate the “least movement” restriction at the instant of release.

803.07 Interference.

C. Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc . . . shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by any two players or an official.

Competition Manual Rule 3.5 Carts and Caddies.

B. A player’s caddie is subject to all items with in the PDGA Rules of Play.

C. Misconduct by a caddie may subject the player and caddy to disqualification and/or suspension.

If a player (not caddy) supports you as you throw, and if you throw a different flight path than you would have thrown without the support, then, logically, the supporting player earns a two-stroke penalty for altering the course of your thrown disc.

If CM 3.5B makes your caddy a “player” in regard to 803.07, then your supporting caddy would be doing the same violation as a supporting player – i.e., altering your flight – which probably qualifies as caddy misconduct under CM 3.5C.

804.05 Disqualification and suspension.

A(3) Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

If you let someone support you, to aid your throw, are you cheating? That’s up to the TD to decide.

[ishkatbible]

at first i didn't see the problem with the caddy thing... but then i read, and wondered why hoser didn't mention...

from the comp. manual
3.5
D. Players must instruct their caddies to maintain a reasonable distance and not interfere with a competitor attempting his or her shot.

[Hoser]

Thanks, Ishkatbible. Yep, that’s what CM 3.5D says. But it leaves me wondering:

• If Bubba’s caddy follows Bubba’s instruction to “Stand behind me and hold my hand while I throw,” is the caddy maintaining a reasonable distance?

• If Bubba’s caddy follows Bubba’s instruction to “Support me while I throw,” is the caddy interfering?

Ishkatbible, do you think CM 3.5D governs Chuck’s scenario? If so: pro or con?

I don’t know the answer. I’m just asking how the rule looks to you.

[ishkatbible]

the arguement would be as you have pointed out... aiding and interfering are not the same. whatever the "correct" call may be.. who knows. i certanly won't have the quoteable answer.

[cgkdisc]

It's quite possible that the only person who can't support you is your caddy due to the caddy rules. However, anyone else does not appear to violate any rule. I know it's been done. It's on video a few times and been done in front of top officials a few times and been approved. I don't see any changes in the 2011 rules that would change that. It's possible the throw might have to be outside 10m however due to the balance rule. The examples I remember were outside 10m.

[august]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

It's quite possible that the only person who can't support you is your caddy due to the caddy rules. However, anyone else does not appear to violate any rule. I know it's been done. It's on video a few times and been done in front of top officials a few times and been approved. I don't see any changes in the 2011 rules that would change that. It's possible the throw might have to be outside 10m however due to the balance rule. The examples I remember were outside 10m.

This seems intuitively wrong whether technically allowed or not. No player should be allowed to be physically assisted by another person in making a shot.

[Sharky]

Outside 10 meters who really cares? Inside: can of worms!

[cgkdisc]

This seems intuitively wrong whether technically allowed or not. No player should be allowed to be physically assisted by another person in making a shot.

In the examples I remember seeing, the lie was a steep bank going down usually into water. In some cases, the player was OB and marked 1m from the water or they didn't land OB but were close to it on the bank. As I see it, the designers didn't specify a relief rule that would prevent players from trying to play from the steep bank. While they could have marked the top edge of the bank as the OB line, that gets cumbersome and more expensive to mark and maintain compared with the default water line being OB. If players aren't required to move off the steep bank or given a "no penalty" casual relief option to move off the steep area, then players will attempt to make the play from there, especially if allowed to have another player help support them, to avoid penalizing themself with an Optional Rethrow penalty and relocation.

[Hoser]

Re Posts #9 and #10.


August hits the nail on the head. If you allow anyone – caddy, fellow player, or gallery – to physically aid your shot and give you a scoring advantage, you are cheating. Your action is a willful circumvention of 803.01A “play the course as you find it” and the penalty is DQ under 804.05A(3). If you let anyone physically support you, to aid your shot, you are playing the course differently from how you found it, just the same as if you had planted a new tree behind your stance.

And 803.07C (interference) should give a two-stroke penalty – for altering your flight – to any player who physically supports your shot.

CM 3.5B makes your caddy subject to rules that affect players. CM 3.5C makes you responsible for your caddy’s conduct. Those two rules don’t clearly spell out the consequence of your caddy altering your flight, but logically one of two things should happen to you: you get the two-stroke penalty (for altering your flight) that your caddy would get if he were a player; or you and your caddy get the boot under 3.5C.

Chuck, the “top officials” in your videos made a mistake under the pre-2011 rules, and they’ll make another mistake if they rule the same under the 2011 rules.


PS to Ishkatbible: your “full contact” logo is eerily appropriate.

[cgkdisc]

If you let anyone physically support you, to aid your shot, you are playing the course differently from how you found it, just the same as if you had planted a new tree behind your stance.

That's a bogus argument because you are allowed to put a towel down on the tee or under your knee on the course to aid your stance, so support from another person isn't out of the question.

And 803.07C (interference) should give a two-stroke penalty – for altering your flight – to any player who physically supports your shot.

Each paragraph is about interfering with a disc in play, not the player. The Interference rule is not relevant to this discussion unless maybe another player tackles the thrower.

[august]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

In the examples I remember seeing, the lie was a steep bank going down usually into water. In some cases, the player was OB and marked 1m from the water or they didn't land OB but were close to it on the bank. As I see it, the designers didn't specify a relief rule that would prevent players from trying to play from the steep bank. While they could have marked the top edge of the bank as the OB line, that gets cumbersome and more expensive to mark and maintain compared with the default water line being OB. If players aren't required to move off the steep bank or given a "no penalty" casual relief option to move off the steep area, then players will attempt to make the play from there, especially if allowed to have another player help support them, to avoid penalizing themself with an Optional Rethrow penalty and relocation.

My opinion would be that the slope is a natural obstacle of the course and is not to be altered by having a human assist a player in standing on that obstacle. This mitigates the effect of the obstacle in an unfair way.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

That's a bogus argument because you are allowed to put a towel down on the tee or under your knee on the course to aid your stance, so support from another person isn't out of the question.

Gotta agree with Chuck here. If it isn't specifically prohibited by the rules, then I can't see where there's much basis to call it "cheating".

The interference rule doesn't really apply here because the rule pertains to altering the flight of the disc. Someone supporting the throwing player is doing nothing to the disc in flight.

And how does the location of the lie relative to the 10-meter circle make a difference? Within 10 meters of the target, the player must establish balance before advancing past his/her mark. So long as they do establish that balance before advancing, what difference does it make how they get to the point of establishing it? In other words, if a player receives support (hand holding, providing a foot hold, whatever) from someone behind their mark, let's go/breaks contact with that person after the release and establishes balance all on their own before advancing, where's the violation?


If you really want to make an argument against another player or a caddy or a spectator assisting a player in any manner described in the thread, why not approach it from rule 802.04 Artificial Devices? THAT seems the most appropriate rule to me. You only have to convince me that another human is an artificial device not specifically allowed by the rule (such as abrasion control devices or medical items).

[august]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

That's a bogus argument because you are allowed to put a towel down on the tee or under your knee on the course to aid your stance, so support from another person isn't out of the question.


Each paragraph is about interfering with a disc in play, not the player. The Interference rule is not relevant to this discussion unless maybe another player tackles the thrower.

I would agree that this has nothing to do with altering one's flight. However, it could be considered building a stance. The towel is the only stance enhancement allowed in the rules. A human could be considered an artificial device that may assist in making a throw if said human is preventing a player from slipping or falling down a sloped playing surface.

I will never believe that the rules have been intentionally written to allow such nonsense.

[cgkdisc]

Might want to look at the Maintaining Balance While Putting Q&A. Seems to allow a person providing support since the person would be behind the lie and also is not part of the course where the least movement rule is relevant:
http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers-0

[august]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Might want to look at the Maintaining Balance While Putting Q&A. Seems to allow a person providing support since the person would be behind the lie and also is not part of the course where the least movement rule is relevant:
http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers-0

That opinion speaks about holding on to objects that are part of the course. A human being is not such an object. On the other hand, if said human is meant to be a part of the course and will be standing in the same position throughout the entire round, then perhaps there is some merit to allowing what you propose. But if the human is moving around like usual, then the human is not part of the course.

BTW, this is the kind of preposterous application of the rules that helped me decide not to re-certify as an official.

[cgkdisc]

This is an example how our game is different from ball golf. It may seem preposterous because support like we're discussing couldn't really be done in ball golf so we've never seen it. But jumping away from preconceived notions on how our sport should be played in comparison, allowing support in tricky circumstances doesn't seem to be an unreasonable option as a limited defense against less than optimal grooming and/or course marking that we encounter with the low budget development of many courses.

[Hoser]

Re Posts #12 and #14.

In the examples I remember seeing, the lie was a steep bank going down usually into water.

Chuck, those examples are course design problems that don’t absolve players of responsibility to play the course as they find it.

BTW, “cumbersome” and “more expensive” are lousy excuses for a TD to put players in the position of having to choose between taking a dangerous stance or playing optional rethrow with penalty.

You are allowed to put a towel down on the tee or under your knee on the course to aid your stance, so support from another person isn't out of the question.

It’s true that 803.05 (obstacles and relief) doesn’t bar you from moving objects that help, rather than impede, play. (See the definition of “obstacle,” about help v. impede.) So 803.05 doesn’t bar you from putting a towel (or anything else, including a fellow player) under your knee, or from moving someone into a position to support you as you throw.

And it’s true that 802.04A (artificial devices) lets you put a towel under your knee to control abrasion.

But the allowances of 802.04 and 803.05 don’t change the fact that you willfully circumvent 803.01A if you get someone to support you as you throw.

Each paragraph [of 803.07] is about interfering with a disc in play, not the player. The Interference rule is not relevant to this discussion unless maybe another player tackles the thrower.

Disc golfers customarily apply 803.07C only to alterations of flight that happen after the disc leaves the thrower’s hand. But the rule makes no such distinction. 803.07C says “Any player who consciously alters the flight of a thrown disc.” If you physically support someone, to enable them to throw differently than if you weren’t supporting them, you are consciously altering the flight of the disc that they throw. If the RC meant to prohibit only interferences that happen after the disc is released into flight, they should have said so in the rule.

[Hoser]

Re Post #16.


Josh, behind my calm exterior of apparently natural skin and designer clothes, I am in fact an artificial device with superpowers akin to the Green Hornet. So if you use me to support you when you throw, you are indeed violating 802.04. Bad boy!

[august]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

This is an example how our game is different from ball golf. It may seem preposterous because support like we're discussing couldn't really be done in ball golf so we've never seen it. But jumping away from preconceived notions on how our sport should be played in comparison, allowing support in tricky circumstances doesn't seem to be an unreasonable option as a limited defense against less than optimal grooming and/or course marking that we encounter with the low budget development of many courses.

On the contrary, I can imagine it being physically possible in ball golf, but I suspect it is not legal and therefore, not done.

Using a human being to physically assist with taking a stance is unequivocally an unreasonable and unfair option in that it is not an option available to all players; it requires the consent of another human being. If the rules are going to be officially interpreted to allow the physical assistance of another human being in making a throw, then that is contrary to the spirit of the game.

[cgkdisc]

If the rules are going to be officially interpreted to allow the physical assistance of another human being in making a throw, then that is contrary to the spirit of the game.

Again, only by your conservative definition of the game. A non-moving tree trunk for support behind a player's lie isn't always available either. I do agree that this option should be made explicitly clear since it falls in this murky area we're discussing. For example, if support by another person is explicitly allowed, I would want a more general definition that allowed someone to sit down on a chair for example. As it is, a player can sit on a boulder that's conveniently in position for a legal stance but a chair would specifically not be allowed as I read the artificial devices rule.

[pterodactyl]

I've hooked my foot around that tree behind me a number of times inside 10m so I don't foot fault. I've never hooked it around another person or asked anyone to hold me back. I don't think you should be able get assistance from another person. My $.02.

[cgkdisc]

There are guys nicknamed Tree. Acceptable?

[august]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Again, only by your conservative definition of the game. A non-moving tree trunk for support behind a player's lie isn't always available either. I do agree that this option should be made explicitly clear since it falls in this murky area we're discussing. For example, if support by another person is explicitly allowed, I would want a more general definition that allowed someone to sit down on a chair for example. As it is, a player can sit on a boulder that's conveniently in position for a legal stance but a chair would specifically not be allowed as I read the artificial devices rule.

I seriously doubt that it is only by my "conservative definition of the game". I would bet that most players think this should not be allowed. I agree that if this is specifically allowed or not allowed, it should be explicitly made clear in the rules.

Right now my opinion is that using a human for physical support to make a throw constitutes using an artificial device.

[august]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

There are guys nicknamed Tree. Acceptable?

What if the guy's nickname is Range Finder or GPS?

[veganray]

OK, here's the way I will use this section of the Chuck Kennedy Rulebook. I am 73.5" tall & have a tippy-toe-to-extended-fingers length of 97.16". My putter has a diameter of 8.35". The height of the upper wire of the bucket of a standard target is 29.5", and the outer rim of the bucket is 13.5" from the pole. Assuming that gravity will cause the disc to drop into the basket if 51% is extended over the rim of the bucket & the disc is released, I (with the CK-endorsed assistance of a sufficiently tall "helper" or a chain of "helpers") can safely execute a drop-in on putts up to 110.35", that is, 9 feet 2.35". See diagram:

That RULES!

[cgkdisc]

The Competition rules haven't really addressed bionically enhanced players that might have a GPS chip embedded or an artificial limb. It's definitely a new horizon. Does a Legend with an artificial heart have an endurance advantage over those who have original equipment? What about artificial limbs like a spring arm? That might be an advantage.