If this is a dead branch: -----------
And this is the disc: O
And the lie is like this: -------O-------
(Where some of the branch is behind and some is in front)

Can you move the branch out of the way so that you can have a comfortable stance?
(I've heard varying opinions on this from many different people)

No. Read the Rules Q&A: Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path

In this case, you can take relief by moving back on the line of play to the closest point where you don't have to step on the branch. There's no penalty unless you have to go back more than 5m.

This should be explicitly spelled out in the rules as it is probably thee most misunderstood rule there is. (Stance is violated more, but most people understand that rule and simply think it doens't matter.)

No. Read the Rules Q&A: Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path

In this case, you can take relief by moving back on the line of play to the closest point where you don't have to step on the branch. There's no penalty unless you have to go back more than 5m.



So is this 5m awarded every time? For example if you have a good stance right behind your lie but a good run-up is not available, are you able to go back up to 5m to find a good run up?

Key words: "...to the closest point..."

You can only go back as far as needed to not step on the branch. You only get up to 5m with no penalty if that's how long the branch is behind the lie. Of course, you can go farther back or to the side if you want to take the 1-throw (or more) Unsafe Lie penalty.

you can however step on the branch. if somehow the branch was more than 5M in direct LOP behind the disc (the disc somehow got under the branch (aka telephone pole)) then the only penalty free option would be to place a support point on the branch.

Even that's not totally true. If the branch-like object is big enough like a telephone pole, you could argue that you can go back as far as needed without penalty to get off of it by using the large solid object rule 803.03E.

But if it's a bent branch as you expect from a tree, stepping on it at all would probably make it roll and move the part that is ahead of your lie, resulting in an instant yet uncalled penalty.

wouldn't that fall under incidental contact ?

Could you technically break-off the portion of the branch that is behind the disc?

i.e. if the layout was like: -------O---------
and you broke it off at the disc to look like: O--------

This way you could clear some room for a run up without moving the un-moveable portion of the branch.

Interesting angle but you would need a laser cutter to snip the back portion to avoid moving the front piece. In addition, I think you could be called on 803.04F which prevents purposely damaging anything during the round, even if behind your lie.

this came up at am nationals, with a dead branch about 1 inch in diameter and 4 feet in length that was behind my disc but angled to the left such that the front part was slightly ahead (ctp) of my disc. i resolved the problem by marking my disc (after saying i thought it would be illegal to move it) and placing my foot where my disc had laid (lied?).

based on your no destruction rule, could grabbing some grass to check the wind be called a rules infraction? :eek:

wouldn't that fall under incidental contact ?


Please quote the "incidental contact" rule. I am unaware of one in our sport. :)

based on your no destruction rule, could grabbing some grass to check the wind be called a rules infraction? :eek:



Dumbest question ever. I am gonna try to stroke someone on it this weekend. I hope I don't get punched. LOL!

I thought it was a good question actually ... if you can't break a dead branch why can you remove living grass?

based on your no destruction rule, could grabbing some grass to check the wind be called a rules infraction? :eek:



Dumbest question ever. I am gonna try to stroke someone on it this weekend. I hope I don't get punched. LOL!



If you see any landscapers mowing the grass, call the police and tell them someone is vandalizing the Park :p

Kicking the dirt is actually a much better way of reading wind. I thought it was a dumb question because of how wide interpretations of the rules have become.

based on your no destruction rule, could grabbing some grass to check the wind be called a rules infraction? :eek:



Dumbest question ever. I am gonna try to stroke someone on it this weekend. I hope I don't get punched. LOL!



If you see any landscapers mowing the grass, call the police and tell them someone is vandalizing the Park :p



Every step taken during a round alters the course....

Interesting angle but you would need a laser cutter to snip the back portion to avoid moving the front piece. In addition, I think you could be called on 803.04F which prevents purposely damaging anything during the round, even if behind your lie.



The reason I asked this question is b/c I've seen this come up a bunch lately and I've seen it handled differently nearly every time. So next time it happens I'd like to at least know what I am talking about. It seems like the Rulebook isn't clear enough, so in order to support my case I would have to reference the Q & A section of the Rules or perhaps even a message thread ... i.e. someone would have to take my word on it right? I could see where this would be a problem.

If it happens to me I am going to put my foot on the branch where it meets the back of the disc and break off the moveable piece without moving the un-moveable piece and hope that nobody nails me for destruciton.

based on your no destruction rule, could grabbing some grass to check the wind be called a rules infraction? :eek:



Dumbest question ever. I am gonna try to stroke someone on it this weekend. I hope I don't get punched. LOL!



If you see any landscapers mowing the grass, call the police and tell them someone is vandalizing the Park :p



Every step taken during a round alters the course....



thanks for the poetic response. reminds me of: "you can't step in the same river twice"

And the lie is like this: -------O-------



a couple weeks ago at the MI state finals mike raley was called on this one. so with the knowledge fresh in mind,
while i was spotting at am nats, i saw this exact thing come up, but it was not up to me to make a call. i quietly pointed it out to some dude who was standing there, but he looked at me as if i did not know what i was talking about, i am just a dumb girl who doesnt know a thing abou tdisc golf, lol. he should have taken my words more seriously, cuz home boy in his group had a much easier lie after movin the stick.

i agree that the rule book is not very clear or easy to read in some sections. i have read it, more than once. when something comes up, i usually just say it rule 802.14 or whatever number sounds right at the time.

based on your no destruction rule, could grabbing some grass to check the wind be called a rules infraction?



i wouldnt say this is a dumb question (no question is dumb), but it is kinda interesting in a funny way. i haev never thought of that as being illigal, for i am one to pull grass outta the ground to check the wind. but, if it is illigal to pull the leaves off of a tree, wouldnt that fall under the same category?
it would be funny as all heII to call someone on this....

it should just be mandatory that we have the wind mph flags on baskets at tournaments like they did at the USADGC.

wouldn't that fall under incidental contact ?



Only if the contact is during the throwing motion :D

no, there is a rule that requires a stance that minimizes movement of any branches, etc. there, tippytoe is ok, but flatfooted in not.

dischick, i agree that this rule is not often called correctly... but the rulebook is actually quite clear on this one.

i agree its clear on this one, but there are some things in teh rule book that are not very clear and it sounds like jibber jabber when you are reading it. maybe its just me.

So what if there was a twig (small branch) that was sitting just behind your lie, within 1 footprint, and you are intending to putt, ie not moving your plant foot at all. The small branch is causing your foot to roll unsteadily.

Do you,

1) Sweep the small branch away with your foot to give you a solid footing?

Or

2) Take relief (up to 5m) behind the lie to insure steady footing?

dischick, i agree that this rule is not often called correctly... but the rulebook is actually quite clear on this one.


One rule says you can never move anything between your lie and the hole.

Another rule says you can move impediments to stance and throwing motion.

This specific case come up a lot and is ruled differently each time. It would be good to state it explicitly in the rule book that if an object extends both in front and behind the lie that you cannot move it. It's not a WHFO scenario.

so the branch is between the lie and the hole, therefore you can not move it?

so the branch is in the way of ones stance, so you can move it?

are there rules that trump other rules?

Chuck,

I don't see this free relief up to 5m option being used very often. (maybe twice in 18 yrs). The 30 cm directly behind my lie rule is the one I'm always concentrating on when I take my stance. My question is when can you and when can't take this relief? I often shift my front foot backward (up to 30cm) to avoid standind on large tree roots, rocks and odd depressions. I'm wondering if all along I could've moved back 2 or three feet. How about an instance where your lie is very close to a tree and you have major difficulty in throwing without hitting a tree in your backswing, midswing or follow through, any free relief available there?

no free relief in that case. thats why god made sidearms.

the underlying premise is that you are entitled only to a stance, not to the stance you may prefer.

(unless your disc is stuck 40M up. then you can move it closer to the pin and play on if the TD has decided that that is in the best interests of the "game".)

Steve,

It is all covered in 803.04.C Obstacles and Relief/Casual Obstacles.

The rule in question applies to casual obstacles, so roots, tree trunks, park equipment, and any other permanent parts of the course are not covered by the rule.

Jen,

One rule doesn't take precedence over the other rule, but one rule doesn't allow you to break other the rule either. The key part of the movement of obstacles to stance and throwing motion (803.04.C.2) is the practicality of moving the obstacle. If part of the obstacle extends between the lie and the hole, it becomes impractical to move the obstacle because it would be an infraction of another rule (803.04.C.1). That is the reason that the relief from casual obstacles portion of the rule (803.04.C.2) is applicable.

I just reviewed the stance rules and answered my own question.

In order to get relief, the object you're relieving yourself from must be deemed a casual object. The only casual objects listed are broken tree branches, casual water, temporary obstacles such as spectators and player's equipment or other items specificly stated as casual obstacles by the TD.

So large roots, rocks and other abnormalities (unless otherwise stated) have to be dealt with inside 30cm or take a unplayable lie penalty. (which to this day, I have never done).

One rule doesn't take precedence over the other rule, but one rule doesn't allow you to break other the rule either.

Actually, Gary, according to the RC's ruling "Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path" in the Rules Q&A, some rules DO take precedence over other rules:


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 lies between Steve's lie and the hole. 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 Steve cannot take a stance, then Steve can relocate his lie to the CLOSEST point of relief on the line of play that is no more than 5 meters away from the original lie with no penalty. Steve could also declare an unsafe lie under 803.05. This ruling also applies, even if the obstacle in question is NOT in the flight path between the lie and the hole. Steve is not allowed to move any obstacle that is totally or partially between his lie and the hole.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

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

I stand corrected.

But as I explained, one does not have to take precedence. It is enough that one does not the other to be ignored.

I really think the question should have been worded so that the size of the obstacle could not be brought up as important. It is really the location of the lie and obstacle that is important.

I really think the question should have been worded so that the size of the obstacle could not be brought up as important. It is really the location of the lie and obstacle that is important.



But isn't the size of, and/or nature or definition of what constitutes an "obstacle" the very thing causing confusion about this recent rule revision? If it's a small stick that could cause you to trip and fall, isn't that different than a fallen limb with branches affecting your choice of flight path? I think the notion of "debris" should include objects (you notice I didn't say obstacles) that can be easily moved, would have a minimal chance of affecting another players disc or stance, and provide for generally more comfortable and safe play from the lie of the disc than what is afforded by the rule currently in the book. The issue of whether or not the object is between the lie in the hole is dependent on how an "obstacle" is defined. The current rule has redefined what constitutes "debris" vs "obstacle" in an unfortunate and unfair way.

True, but anything that brings judgement calls into play is less desirable. The cut and dry decision of in front or behind the mark without regard to size and possible interference with the throw is preferable to a judgement call.

It may not make much sense in certain cases, but it makes interpretting the rule correctly easier. Simple rule of thumb, if any part of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole, it can't be moved. Since it can't be moved, relief under 804.03.C.2 is granted.

I just reviewed the stance rules and answered my own question.

In order to get relief, the object you're relieving yourself from must be deemed a casual object. The only casual objects listed are broken tree branches, casual water, temporary obstacles such as spectators and player's equipment or other items specificly stated as casual obstacles by the TD.

So large roots, rocks and other abnormalities (unless otherwise stated) have to be dealt with inside 30cm or take a unplayable lie penalty. (which to this day, I have never done).



For a second I thought you were going to say, " In order to get relief, the object you're relieving yourself on"... LOL!

The rule is crystal clear. If the object in your lie is so tiny, then it shouldn't effect your stance and throw, if it is not, then oh well, deal with it, and don't throw there again.

As a side note: Have you ever seen Carlton deal with the little sticks and leaves etc that are behind his lie? That is completely legal and fair, none of the stuff infront of his lie is altered, yet the lie is free of tiny debris. USE IT!

I'll let someone else describe the technique.

By the way, this is not a new rule, it is just a clarification of old ones.

don't throw there again.




i agree, the best way to avoid this is to just throw better shots....

The rule is crystal clear. If the object in your lie is so tiny, then it shouldn't effect your stance and throw, if it is not, then oh well, deal with it, and don't throw there again


oh, would that you exhibit this clarity, sobriety and wisdom when it comes to the 2MR! up in the air or on the ground with half the stick in front and half in back... what are the odds!?!

(unless your disc is stuck 40M up. then you can move it closer to the pin and play on if the TD has decided that that is in the best interests of the "game".)



Pat, i wish you hadn't brought in the 2 meter rule in such a biased way, because i feel compelled to respond. :p
marking the lie underneathe where the disc comes to rest is not moving the disc closer to the pin, it is conforming to our rules regarding marking a lie. evidently, you favor some sort of re-write when it comes to marking the lie :confused:
i noticed you did not complain that a disc stuck 1.9 meters up in a tree is allowed to be marked on the ground without penalty /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

dats cuz you're not marking it closer to the basket, rob. we have covered this phenomena on other threads. (its called a triangle)

if there was any decent degree of predictability in getting a disc to stick 40 feet up in a tree directly above a pin, or the pin couldn't simply be relocated, or the TD couldn't declare that particular tree OB from a heighth of 2 meters and above -- your argument would seem worth more consideration. why do you think it is the sane folks on the rules committee haven't changed their minds? why would Chuck Kennedy favor the RC recommendation? at the USADGC, the 2 meter rule was in effect for 3 holes. i guess you think they were nuts? :confused:

here's the compromise i am suggesting: 2 meter rule is eliminated as the default scenario beginning in 2006 -- except for the state of Texas :D
Texas will be free to secede from the union if it so chooses :D

Doubles and Singles Tournaments at Idlewild (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/thread-view.asp?threadid=563&start=1)

Take your 2 meter vitriol back to the 2 meter threads.

he started it :D

click here for Idlewild Tournament Flyer (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/thread-view.asp?threadid=563&start=1)

[/QUOTE]

small branches that are like twigs and sticks are moved all the time. How big does a twig have to be before it becomes an "object"

That is a bone of major contention around here right now. Many are zealously not allowing the movement of any stick no matter how tiny if any even 1% is past your lie, others move them all the time, the inconsistancy of how people play that is a big problem :(

why would Chuck Kennedy favor the RC recommendation?...i guess you think they were nuts?


in a word, yes. good people and dedicated servants of the sport. but on this issue undeniably and certifiably nuts.

he started it :D

click here for Idlewild Tournament Flyer (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/thread-view.asp?threadid=563&start=1)



[/QUOTE]

"Mom! Pat touched me!" :D

That is a bone of major contention around here right now. Many are zealously not allowing the movement of any stick no matter how tiny if any even 1% is past your lie, others move them all the time, the inconsistancy of how people play that is a big problem :(



That's because people are playing the game without knowing the rules. Like Rhett said, this rule needs to be clearly spelled out, in bold type if possible. :)

This happened in a mini not too long ago. The guy "cheating" said, "but in the spirit of the game, you should allow me to move that stick so i don't get hurt."

WHAT ABOUT BACKING UP a few inches????...the rules allow you to do that! If you think that those 3 inches are going to make a difference, then you need to work on putting. (In this case, he was putting)

Earlier in this thread there was discussion regarding grass and whether it should also be treated like twigs. My suspicion is that the Rules Committee assumed that players could tell the difference. Now I'm thinking that some form of Glossary definition would be helpful, especially due to the issue being discussed here.

I've always used the "stiffness" of the foliage as a guide. If the stalk requires more than minimal effort to place a kink in it or snap it with your fingers, it isn't "grass" and must be regarded like a bush or tree and the rules pertaining to that type of foliage. For example, I've never snapped a cat tail and tossed it in the air to test the wind direction.

Earlier in this thread there was discussion regarding grass and whether it should also be treated like twigs. My suspicion is that the Rules Committee assumed that players could tell the difference. Now I'm thinking that some form of Glossary definition would be helpful, especially due to the issue being discussed here.

I've always used the "stiffness" of the foliage as a guide. If the stalk requires more than minimal effort to place a kink in it or snap it with your fingers, it isn't "grass" and must be regarded like a bush or tree and the rules pertaining to that type of foliage. For example, I've never snapped a cat tail and tossed it in the air to test the wind direction.



I'm sorry Chuck but are you serious?

I can't believe that we've descended to discussing grass thickness. :D


I can see it now... If the grass is dead i.e. it hasn't been watered, it's O.K. to pull some for a wind test, but if it still has a hint of green it is a one stroke penalty.

Once again, common sense. The rule disallowing the movement of a stick from in front of a disc is meant to make the player pay for their throw. Personally, I find it onerous. From 350 to 400 feet, my eyesight isn't good enough to see a stick that might impede my next throw. This ain't the same as throwing into the shule, a pond, or a tree.

This rule should be changed.

That aside, I've yet to see any player break a stick or move one out of their way other than incidental to their throwing motion. Is everyone out there moving sticks around and I can't see it? :D You cheatin' stick movers!

If it's so simple, Lyle, how much grass trampling can you do behind your marker to make room for a better stance? And when is it not grass and not OK?

One thing I do when looking for my disc in high grass is go past where I think my disc is and work my way back. While it's a reasonable search strategy, it has a side benefit that sometimes the high grass in front of my lie will incidentally have been trampled in the process of searching. Am I subverting the rules to deserve a courtesy violation or is this just an incidental benefit of the search process?

One thing I do when looking for my disc in high grass is go past where I think my disc is and work my way back. While it's a reasonable search strategy, it has a side benefit that sometimes the high grass in front of my lie will incidentally have been trampled in the process of searching. Am I subverting the rules to deserve a courtesy violation or is this just an incidental benefit of the search process?



Chuck, while i appreciate the work you do, i am afraid i am going to have to recommend that you be suspended. it is one thing to innocently improve your lie, but as you do so somewhat knowingly you've put me in a tough position. Report you to Nick or come up with a remedy.

remedy: when you look for your disc, reach down and reposition each weed you knock down. thanks in advance :p

If it's so simple, Lyle, how much grass trampling can you do behind your marker to make room for a better stance? And when is it not grass and not OK?

One thing I do when looking for my disc in high grass is go past where I think my disc is and work my way back. While it's a reasonable search strategy, it has a side benefit that sometimes the high grass in front of my lie will incidentally have been trampled in the process of searching. Am I subverting the rules to deserve a courtesy violation or is this just an incidental benefit of the search process?



Too Sweet!

I'm still laughing at a knock knock joke from the jokes thread... Grade school humor at it's best!

BTW Chuck, I didn't say it was simple, just ludicrous. You have to admit the vision of a adult going from grass strand to grass strand with a caliper and a fexibility tester is pretty funny.

You haven't played with Homburg (the PDGA disc tester) I presume...

Is this going to lead to needing pdga approved grass and weeds?

Is this going to lead to needing pdga approved grass and weeds?






PDGA approved weed? Hmmmmm....... :p

100% correct.


That is a bone of major contention around here right now. Many are zealously not allowing the movement of any stick no matter how tiny if any even 1% is past your lie, others move them all the time, the inconsistancy of how people play that is a big problem :(



That's because people are playing the game without knowing the rules. Like Rhett said, this rule needs to be clearly spelled out, in bold type if possible. :)

This happened in a mini not too long ago. The guy "cheating" said, "but in the spirit of the game, you should allow me to move that stick so i don't get hurt."

WHAT ABOUT BACKING UP a few inches????...the rules allow you to do that! If you think that those 3 inches are going to make a difference, then you need to work on putting. (In this case, he was putting)

how much grass trampling can you do behind your marker to make room for a better stance?




if the grass is dead, then you can trample more.....?

Is this going to lead to needing pdga approved grass and weeds?



the course rating might go up with pdga approved grass...

can i get this job?

small branches that are like twigs and sticks are moved all the time. How big does a twig have to be before it becomes an "object"

It has to be big-enough to be moved. http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

this cameup many times this weekend at an event I played. I told people that they couldnt move the branch if it was extended past their disc. They were furious and thought I was insane. I told them to check this thread on the PDGA board. This rule really needs clarified because no one understands it correctly.

The rule has been clarified; there's the Rules Committee's 'clarification' [above] somewhere in this thread; word just needs to get around! :)

well then, what if you place your bag on a branch that is in your way of your stance???? I see this happen all the time. Oh thorn in my side, just put my bag on it and no more thorn.

what worried me about this rule is that I had more than 5 players with PDGA numbers lower than 4000 tell me that I was absolutely crazy when I said they couldnt move the stick because it extended past their disc. Might be hard passing along the info about this figuring they have been playing 20 years. this is not clearly defined in the rules

a friend of mine who was called on this rule (sometime b4 this thread came up) has been playing for quite sometime. when he was called on it he had never heard it before either.

maybe everybody here should take a break, sign off, and read their rule book.

...and get the PDGA to put the interpretations in the rule book, so we don't have to check here (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php) to read them.

now that is a good idea

'Clearly'. :o:D

Try 803.04B, whilst there. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :cool:

...and get the PDGA to put the interpretations in the rule book, so we don't have to check here (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php) to read them.


Or just add the Q&A to the next edition. :)

...and get the PDGA to put the interpretations in the rule book, so we don't have to check here (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php) to read them.


Or just add the Q&A to the next edition. :)



Isn't that what I said? :p

I read that "in" as an "into" not "with" but I see you are also like-mindely brilliant! http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

The rule has been clarified; there's the Rules Committee's 'clarification' [above] somewhere in this thread; word just needs to get around! :)



Yes, and that RC statement had to do with a large fallen tree branch that could be legitimately deemed an actual "obstacle". "Debris", should not be considered obstacles. It's ludicrous to say that a stick on the ground that goes an inch past your lie can't be moved, but that the whole pile of sticks impeding your back foot CAN be moved. I can clear a wide swath behind my marker so I can kneel down comfortably to throw through the bush in front of me, but I can't move a dead branch (that has no affect on the flight of the disc) so that I can play from my actual lie. This is remarkably inconsistent. If the basic tenet of the rule is to play it where it lies - how about we get some better definitions of what constitutes "debris" (which I believe is in the book and includes rocks, sticks, loose leaves etc - at least it used to be there), vs what constitutes an "obstacle". Perhaps a reference to objects affecting the flight path would help.

Well stated Craig, may we submit your post to the rules comittee and get a ruling? If so how does one go about that? Thanks.

The rules are quite clear. Nothing (as in nothing on the ground, the air, near the flight path, impeding your stance or throwing motion) in front of the lie may be moved. If the insubstantial thing on the ground you are complaining about creates an uncomfortable or impractical stance, then you are allowed relief to establish a safe stance. You are by no means required to take said relief and are allowed to play it where it lies.

It is as much a basic tenet as playing it where it lies.
Nothing infront or the lie may be touched. It's plain, simple, and needs no interpretation for what is allowable. Adding in the ability to move some things in front of the lie, but not others just complicates matters and invites differences of opinion.

From the rules question and answers pertaining to this question:

"Rule Question: Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path
Question: Steve throws his drive under a large fallen tree branch. "

I think there is plenty of ambiguity here, the question and answer relates to a large fallen tree branch, so fine that question has been answered, not the question of a small stick IMO.

The rule has been clarified; there's the Rules Committee's 'clarification' [above] somewhere in this thread; word just needs to get around! :)



Yes, and that RC statement had to do with a large fallen tree branch that could be legitimately deemed an actual "obstacle". "Debris", should not be considered obstacles. It's ludicrous to say that a stick on the ground that goes an inch past your lie can't be moved, but that the whole pile of sticks impeding your back foot CAN be moved. I can clear a wide swath behind my marker so I can kneel down comfortably to throw through the bush in front of me, but I can't move a dead branch (that has no affect on the flight of the disc) so that I can play from my actual lie. This is remarkably inconsistent. If the basic tenet of the rule is to play it where it lies - how about we get some better definitions of what constitutes "debris" (which I believe is in the book and includes rocks, sticks, loose leaves etc - at least it used to be there), vs what constitutes an "obstacle". Perhaps a reference to objects affecting the flight path would help.



If as you say the stick has no effect on the flight path of the disc then why do you feel you need to move it?

Because it effects your stance?

Because it effects your footing?

Because it is uncomfortable?

Because it is dangerous to throw without fully considering it?

Isn't it obvious that even though it is not directly in your flight path that it nontheless certainly "DOES" affect your throw and everything having to do with your lie?

As per usual you are stopping short of the final conclusion.

And for the record, I agree with you that you should not be able to move that large pile of debris behind your lie either. You threw your disc there, now deal with the lie you have thrown into. If you don't want to deal with "ALL" of the factors of that lie then don't throw there in the future...

The Q&A really clearly answers the question, unless you are looking for ways around it.


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 Steve cannot take a stance, then Steve can relocate his lie to the CLOSEST point of relief on the line of play that is no more than 5 meters away from the original lie with no penalty. Steve could also declare an unsafe lie under 803.05. This ruling also applies, even if the obstacle in question is <u>NOT in the flight path</u> between the lie and the hole. Steve is not allowed to move <u>any obstacle that is totally or partially between his lie and the hole</u>.



No relief is granted from any obstacle that is totally or partially between the lie and the hole. Period, no exceptions. Size does not matter, flight path does not matter. Even though the question involved a large branch that also extended in the the filght path, the answer did not.

Precisely!


The Q&A really clearly answers the question, unless you are looking for ways around it.


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 Steve cannot take a stance, then Steve can relocate his lie to the CLOSEST point of relief on the line of play that is no more than 5 meters away from the original lie with no penalty. Steve could also declare an unsafe lie under 803.05. This ruling also applies, even if the obstacle in question is <u>NOT in the flight path</u> between the lie and the hole. Steve is not allowed to move <u>any obstacle that is totally or partially between his lie and the hole</u>.



No relief is granted from any obstacle that is totally or partially between the lie and the hole. Period, no exceptions. Size does not matter, flight path does not matter. Even though the question involved a large branch that also extended in the the filght path, the answer did not.

OK, thanks gnduke I guess I have to accept the ruling.

Nick thanks for restating why it is a factor in your lie That's the reason I want to move it.

OK, thanks gnduke I guess I have to accept the ruling.

Nick thanks for restating why it is a factor in your lie That's the reason I want to move it.



Why not just move your lie while your at it? All the same reasons apply right?

Not getting it nick, but I don't really care

Not getting it nick, but I don't really care



Chyah. I we can tell.

Message Board Rule #1: When losing a debate just say you don't really care... :o

I'm not disputing the rule but give me some credit maybe I am ignorant :eek:

Anyone reading the rule book soon discovers the lack of clear prose. In the end we are left trying to determine what the rules committee members were thinking and discussing when they wrote the rule in question. From personal discussions with committee members and from reading the rule questions and answers, it is clear to me that the rule was never meant to prohibit players from moving small sticks and twigs from where they are going to plant their foot. The rule was written to prevent players from moving branches that extend in front of their lie and interfere with the player�s throwing motion or the flight path of the disc. The statement that �Steve needs to avoid throwing next to such obstacles� supports this point. How is a player going to avoid throwing next to a pencil-sized stick three hundred feet down and in the middle of the fairway? Someone on this thread commented about the number of players with low PDGA numbers that are guilty of moving small sticks and twigs from their lies. Well, in the thirty years that I have been playing this sport, it was never an issue until this recent debate surfaced. This rule, like many others, needs to be rewritten so that the intention of the committee is clear. Until that happens, I think we as players need to use our common sense and play by the spirit of the rule.

In this case, the prose is very clear.

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
B. Obstacles Between the Lie and Hole: A player may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle between the lie and the hole, with one exception. A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round.



It is only in the common custom of removing small debris from the stance and disregarding the prose concerning things between the lie and the hole that this rule becomes an issue.

If we allow the question to get into subjective judgements of size, we get into gray areas.

With the above standard, there is no Gray area. No one has to decide if this stick is too big to move. There won't be an inconsistency between cards where one card decides a stick is too big and another could care less if the branch is the size of a small tree.

The choice now is up the the player. If there is an obstacle between the lie and the hole and in your stance, take relief or don't.

When you read the rule that says you *CAN* move obstacles to stance and throwing motion, that is when it becomes a lot less clear.

I'll give you that, but common sense steps in that says one rule can not allow you to break another rule. Casual relief says I have up 5 meters to find a suitable lie. If that 5 meters backs me into a nice flat spot like an OB road, that does not mean that the casual relief rule allows me to take a stance in an OB area.

If one rule says that I can move things from in my stance unless it is impractical to do so and another rule says I can't move things between the lie and the hole, it just became real impractical for me to move that object. What options do I have left ? relief - spelled out in the same rule.

Gary, I agree with you in priciple.

But I also know from experience that this is probably the most mis-understood pair of rules there are judging solely on the number of times that people actually try to read them and follow them and end up moving branches that are between their lie and the hole and in the way of their stance.

The proof is in the pudding, and unlike the perfectly clear "30cm and on the LOP stance" that people understadn but ignore, a lot of people really don't get this one.

There are a number of things about this rule I object to. First are the general inconsistencies presented.
a) I can move a pile of sticks behind my lie in order to stand or kneel with a supporting point behind my mark, but I cannot move a piece of debris that happens to extend an inch past my mark in order to stand ON MY ACTUAL LIE.
b) I can move a stick a hundred feet in front of me because I just saw the wind blow it down and I think it may affect my next shot, but I cant move a stick which stretches across my foot placement diagonally and extends technically between my lie and the hole even though there's no way it could affect my next shot.

Both of these examples would force one to take relief, effectively changing your lie - and apparently, some people consider this both common sense - and preferable to merely sweeping aside debris in order to take a legal stance.

c) The rules should not conflict with one another. Stance rules for many many years have given us the basic premise of play it where it lies. This re-write has been the source for me personally, in tournament play, as an overbearing general nuisance, and I can see it easily becoming the source of many an argument. I should not have to ok the movement of every little twig in someones stance ( I was recently asked about 6-10 times in a round by a 1025 rated player).

Personally I believe the solution is in our definitions. The definition of what constitutes an OBSTACLE, vs what constitutes DEBRIS.

The essence however in this "spirit of the rule" debate comes down to this. We frequently play in the woods. As such, there seem to be sticks and rocks everywhere. No one can control where or how many there might be - because generally - our courses are not maintained or manicured in this fashion. Until objects become obstacles TO THE FLIGHT OF THE DISC, we either need to allow reasonable movement of things to maintain the integrity and intent of the stance rules, or allow absolutley nothing to be moved, ever. (But that seems just a little silly doesn't it?)

i don tthink its legal to go move a stick/branch 100 feet (or any distance) in front of your shot, whether or not the win djust knocked it down......

Refer to my quote of the rule above. If it is known to have fallen during the round, it may be moved. The idea is to have the course play the same for all players as much as possible.

Generally, unless you see it fall, you can not guarantee that it became a factor during the round.

Both of these examples would force one to take relief, effectively changing your lie - and apparently, some people consider this both common sense - and preferable to merely sweeping aside debris in order to take a legal stance.



Craig, one question. Is it "necessary" to move those tiny sticks to take a legal stance, or are you really talking about it being "more comfortable" to move those tiny sticks?

The rule is clear as it is. I am open to changing it to allow some stuff as you and Wayne propose, but the exact language is not an easy matter, and I'm not sure it need be.

You guys both present your argument for being able to move tiny sticks and stuff because it doesn't effect your throw. That is patently incorrect, because if it didn't effect your throw you would have no reason to move them. (So they DO effect your throw.)

The spirit of the rule is to play your next shot from where your disc came to rest, the lie, with all that that entails: the list of conditions endless.

Really, I think the hotwater comes from our rules allowing us to purposefully move anything anywhere near our lie for the reason of greater "comfort". We've been spoiled to a degree in my opinion.

If the debris makes you take greater care in run up or stance, then that "should" be a part of the game, not an opportunity to alter the course and field of play to our benefit, yet likely to the detriment of others play. I believe it is within the spirit of the game to leave the course as much the way you found it, during competition, as is reasonably possible.

Guys moving piles of sticks, rocks, leaves, pine needles, anything to dig little ditches (which they do not put back to the way they were) is an aberration to our Rules of Play, imo. Nothing seems as wrong as this during tournament play.

Course preparation is not the domain of competitors during rounds. That is for the course pro, course club and TD to take care of prior to the event. If at all, the only folks I'd ever want altering a course during an event would be an Official, and that only rarely.

Inadvertant movement of objects is a completely different matter.

I think that it would be less trouble to adjust to not moving stuff than to try and define what can be move and what can not.

As it is currently, don't purposefully move anything that is in part or in whole between your lie and the hole or you are in violation of the rules as they are currently written and interpretted.

Fortunately, it sounds like there will be more flexibility in 2006. The original intent of the rule was to prevent players from moving logs with branches extending upward in front of a players lie that might hinder the flight path. The current wording then got interpreted to include even little sticks that have no bearing on the flight path. I'm not sure how the new wording will handle it. But it is being rewritten so the "common sense" circumstances Craig indicates will allow players to move small sticks that project in front of their lie if the sticks don't have segments that project upward some amount. I haven't seen the text but I believe that's the goal of the new wording from the brief rules presentation at the Summit meeting

Fortunately, it sounds like there will be more flexibility in 2006.



Chuck, I believe that I have the same access as you to the approved updates and have seen no such additional "flexibilities" being added as concerns this rule in 2006. PM me with the precise section decribing this change please.


The original intent of the rule was to prevent players from moving logs with branches extending upward in front of a players lie that might hinder the flight path.



Please explain to us how you have knowledge of this "original intent". This is Craig's idea of it, but I have found no evidence that it was the original intent of the PDGA Rules Committee. Besides aren't you in essence negating any condition of lie having to do with throwing motion, footing, or stance? How could that possibly be in line with "orignial intent"?


The current wording then got interpreted to include even little sticks that have no bearing on the flight path.



That is simply incorrect and misleading Chuck. The current wording is precise and clear. There purposefully is no mention of such a loose and subjective theory of "the flight path" because it would not be enforceable. "Oh, I'm not going to throw it straight at the target so I can move this branch over here." or "This vine is not in my flight path, just a pain in the arse for my throwing motion, so I can move it." Crazy!


I'm not sure how the new wording will handle it.



I'm not sure you have any idea of what it already says. It is already written and approved.


But it is being rewritten so the "common sense" circumstances Craig indicates will allow players to move small sticks that project in front of their lie if the sticks don't have segments that project upward some amount. I haven't seen the text but I believe that's the goal of the new wording from the brief rules presentation at the Summit meeting



Again, I believe that you are mistaken. There is nothing "common sense" about being able to alter your lie so that you have a more comfortable stance, throwing motion or better footing. Golf IS dealing with ALL the conditions of the lie, not just the ones you "like".

The worst thing our PDGA BOD could possibly do is start to politicize our Rules of Play and meddle with the responsibilities of the PDGA Rules Committee.

Rules are not about popularity, they're, or should be, about fairness. Altering lies is a direct hit to fairness.

Everything I posted was what I understood from the RC presentation at the Summit meeting. I did my best to explain it as I heard it without having a transcript. You were not there so I'm not sure how you can dispute it. As I posted earlier regarding changes to the lost disc rule, the RC is moving more toward the 'reasonable person' approach taken in several ball golf rules which sometimes can't be easily written in the text. I'm assuming that will require more reliance on the Q&A interpretations becoming integral to the rules over time.

At first glance, my impression was that sticks and twigs partially in front of ones lie, but partially behind it, shouldn't be moveable. Then i felt that if it isn't in the flight path -- what's the big deal? But Rules writers do well to consider the unwanted doors that the crafting of a rule may unwittingly open. If sticks between the lie and the target are allowed to be moved provided they are not projecting significantly up in the air, it sounds like a rule people adept at throwing Rollers could interpret in ways disconcerting to those not so adept at throwing rollers...

Sticks completely between the lie and target couldn't be moved, just those that also extend thru the lie. Again, this is how I heard it and I have no hard copy to quote.

I would have to agree that any wording that does not provide a clear and concise demarkation between what is moveable and what is not opens the door to more confusion and argument. The wording as it is now is clear and there is provision for relief if not moving the obstacle is a problem. I would much rather error on the conservative side than allow too much leeway in movement of obstacles.

has anyone else noticed how VEHEMENTLY nick argues(in EVERY SINGLE POST on this thread) about playing it where it lies ...no matter what....

but he can't see the logic used on this thread that he is spouting to be used on his BABY...the 2 meter rule....

another f'in hipocrite that argues one way when he agrees and another when it doesn't suit him...

sorta like ALWAYS saying to know, follow and call the rules...
and after EVERY SINGLE TOURNAMENT he plays in coming on the discussion board and saying....

"i should have called this and i should have called that...and NEXT time i will call this and i will call that"....

be a man and either ALWAYS call stuff or stop telling everyone else to call stuff while you conveinently don't call stuff...you 2 faced piece of(fill in any word that will be c ensored if i type it)

do us all a favor and stop posting on rules threads until you KNOW how to call rules violations WHEN they happen!!


have a nice day
keith

Keith, i think your personal distaste for Nick's posting style distorts your judgement of his hypocrisy with regard to his position on playing it where it lies verses his opposition to the 2 meter rule as a force-fed scenario.

It seems to me playing it where it lies means vertically below wherever it is suspended -- be that distance one meter or three. We mark our lie on the playing surface. Nick also seems to prefer rules which are easily understood and not overly complicated (aka: more 'elegant'). So it seems fairly consistent to me that he opposes force-feeding the 2 meter rule in favor of empowering TD's to use their own discretion to declare disc suspensions at particular heights as OB ("aerial OB") whenever a TD determines that a particular hole's design and features make it necessary.

You may say i am biased by my preference for well-written rules that don't force feed rules like the 2 meter rule when they all too often can come into play without substantial reliability and all too often can lead to double jeopardy. That's a fair accusation ...

Might this something that 'opens the door to more confusion and argument' ?
:o

http://www.geocities.com/foshildgc/twig

But it is a simple argument now once players are educated.

Current rule...
Player 1 - Can I move this ?
Player 2 - Does it extend beyond the mark towards the basket ?
Player 1 - Yes, a little.
Player 2 - No.

Flight path rule...
Player 1 - Can I move this ?
Player 2 - Does it extend beyond the mark towards the basket ?
Player 1 - Yes, a little.
Player 2 - Does any part of it stick up into the flight path ?
Player 1 - Well, parts of it are about 5 foot tall, but I'm throwing on a different line. So no, it's not in the flight patch.
Player 2 - I guess you can move it then.
(move the large branch that was not in the flight path)
Player 1 throws right through where the branch had been.
Player 2 - I thought you said you were using a different line.
Player 1 - I was, but after the branch was gone, that one looked better.

rob..i have NO problems with nick's posting "style"...
i have problems with his hipocrasy...2 meters..no 2 meters...that is not the REAL issue...
the REAL issue is that he REFUSES when presented under countless documented on the message board postings by his own admission to DO WHAT HE SCREAMS OVER AND OVER for others to do....
know follow AND CALLLLLLLLLLL the rules.....
he may do the first 2 but always seems to have an excuse for not doing the last part.....

ever since i started posting on thisboard i have called outpeople who say one thing and do another....or say something they have NO knowledge of and spout it as the facts..or just out and out LIE until confronted(reese,nick,the pdga BOD a couple of times, and a couple of other guys in florida)

granted i'm nowhere near as anal as felix in exact word for word scenarios(reference his supposed "sponsorship" back and forth with me a couple of years ago)...

but i still like to think that i've contributed somewhat to the message board and the game...
i just think nick like reese does more harm than good to their discussion points because they don't do what they say without ALOT of EXCUSES and negativity that goes against the good they do in reality for the game....

that's just my opinion and i appreciate yours and everyone elses on the board

keith

Again, precisely!


But it is a simple argument now once players are educated.

Current rule...
Player 1 - Can I move this ?
Player 2 - Does it extend beyond the mark towards the basket ?
Player 1 - Yes, a little.
Player 2 - No.

Flight path rule...
Player 1 - Can I move this ?
Player 2 - Does it extend beyond the mark towards the basket ?
Player 1 - Yes, a little.
Player 2 - Does any part of it stick up into the flight path ?
Player 1 - Well, parts of it are about 5 foot tall, but I'm throwing on a different line. So no, it's not in the flight patch.
Player 2 - I guess you can move it then.
(move the large branch that was not in the flight path)
Player 1 throws right through where the branch had been.
Player 2 - I thought you said you were using a different line.
Player 1 - I was, but after the branch was gone, that one looked better.

Sticks completely between the lie and target couldn't be moved, just those that also extend thru the lie. Again, this is how I heard it and I have no hard copy to quote.



So then there have been further modifications to the 2005 Rules Updates because no such language were a part of the original approved version.

It would be interesting to know if this "flexibility" was politically motivated because it clearly was not motivated by "clarity" of rule. (Much similar to support for the continued inclusion of the 2 meter paragraphs (3 out of 4) in Disc Above the Playing Surface).

Keith, you need to not only learn how to read and write, but how to think also. Way to sloppy for a serious response. Community College might be able to help you out.

I use the word "might" loosely there...

i'll make a deal with you...i'll go to college when you come back from an event and say you ACTUALLY called someone on a rules violation instead of saying you will do it next time like you ALWAYS 100% of the time say you'll do...


there is no point discussing anything with you as you lack the ability to defend your weak lies by saying you never said it...even though myself and countless others cut and paste your lies...sorry...mistaken sayings....and show them to you...

come back when you can TRULY defend your positions instead of dancing around in circles....

and please let me know which cc you went to so i can avoid it if you ever do call someone at an event

keith

Way to sloppy for a serious response. Community College might be able to help you out.



Gold.

"Discs never stick above 2 meters."

and

"I call the rules 100% of the time."

Not sure where you read either of those lines, but I assure you it was not by me. (I've noted that only liars call other people liars for misunderstandings.)

Like I said,"Community College might be able to help you out."

"Discs never stick above 2 meters."

<font color="blue"> i didn't say you said it as a quote...you just waste alot of space defending stuff on one thread and then arguing against it on another thread when it suits YOUR argument and not human logic... </font>

"I call the rules 100% of the time."

<font color="blue"> if your reading comprehension didn't always blow...you would have seen that
I SAID...after events you play in that 100% of the time you come on the message board and say you should have called this and that...
that is the 100% part</font>

Not sure where you read either of those lines, but I assure you it was not by me.

<font color="blue"> alright reese..sorry...i meant nick...do you really want me to spend the time going back a cutting and pasting your hipocrasies...cuz i've got plenty of free time
</font>
(I've noted that only liars call other people liars for misunderstandings.)

<font color="blue"> when did i say i WASN'T a liar....your non- human logic is again wasted trying to be mean to someone who doesn't mind discussing stuff when he has PROOF to back it up...
just like in ALL of the instances and people i mentioned a few(for felix)posts ago...none of them can tell me i'm lying,mistaken,or confused....because i heard/saw it with my own ears and eyes... </font>


Like I said,"Community College might be able to help you out."

<font color="blue">and instead of avoiding questions as you usually do...why don't you give me the answer about calling someone at your next event and the name of your cc so i don't go there when you DO FINALLY call somebody without coming on the board after the fact whining about it??



after all you are the king of KFC land....
(which by the way i fully believe in doing)




so do what you say you everyone else should do...


keith
</font>

I do.

I only bring up stuff that everyone likely has to think about.

Besides, aren't you coming on here and telling me what to do.

May I reciprocate? You really need to sign up for reading comprehension and writing classes.

I do.
<font color="blue"> then all those postings saying you DIDN'T call someone but wanted to were just lies then?</font>
I only bring up stuff that everyone likely has to think about.
<font color="blue"> agreed </font>
Besides, aren't you coming on here and telling me what to do.
<font color="blue"> i ASKING you to do what you ASK others to always do </font>
May I reciprocate? You really need to sign up for reading comprehension and writing classes.
<font color="blue"> i CAN read what you say....that's why you can't defend yourself</font>




<font color="blue"> you can keep trying to avoid your mistatements all you want....doesn't mean they aren't made by you </font>

So then there have been further modifications to the 2005 Rules Updates because no such language were a part of the original approved version.



Perhaps you missed the note that the RC is doing a major rules revision for 2006? It's not just a tweak to the 2005 items that didn't get implemented.

Yes, I did. I'll attempt to get back in the loop concerning the rules update.

Keith,

What exactly are you after here? That I say that I don't always call the rules? Yes, I don't always call the rules. You say that I say that I always do, or that I tell others to always call them, when that simply is not the case. I ask folks to do their best, that is all you can ask of anyone or yourself.

Yes, yes, yes I often say one thing and do another. Please offer a single example of someone who at some time or another does not. You act like you have discovered the meaning of life or something.

Take a deep breath, you'll be alright.

lol :D

i'm not AFTER anything....
i posted several(again for felix)posts before what i try to do on the board as a service to people who just believe everything that is posted on here....

i just try to set the record straight...you have now posted all i was asking of you...

thank you and my work here is now done!

i can breathe easy again :D







for a short while i thought i might have to go back to school :eek: :p

<a href="" onMouseover="alert('Nick, go crawl under your bridge.')">
Mouseover!</a>

Hey guys, take your sniveling elsewhere. I'd like to read the discussion on "Dead branch under disc (behind and front) ... moveable?", and not have to wade through all of your personal attacks to do so.

Now.... back to the topic at hand. PLEASE!

p.s. If you want to sling insults and personal attacks, come to the ADGO forum. We could teach you both a lot about how to push the limits of public decorum. :D

The rules committee answered the question in plain language in a letter ruling that is published on the rules webpages. What's left to discuss other than how much we are annoyed by ____________ ?

Plenty, if it is not a large dead branch but a 3 inch twig.

I'm not going to re-read the thread to see if this has already been posted.
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 lies between Steve's lie and the hole. 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 Steve cannot take a stance, then Steve can relocate his lie to the CLOSEST point of relief on the line of play that is no more than 5 meters away from the original lie with no penalty. Steve could also declare an unsafe lie under 803.05. This ruling also applies, even if the obstacle in question is NOT in the flight path between the lie and the hole. Steve is not allowed to move any obstacle that is totally or partially between his lie and the hole.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

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


I suppose you can discuss what the rule ought to be, but what it is is plain enough.

Plenty, if it is not a large dead branch but a 3 inch twig.

you're saying you must remove a 3 inch twig in order to have a good solid throw?

It helps.

The rules committee answered the question in plain language in a letter ruling that is published on the rules webpages. What's left to discuss other than how much we are annoyed by ____________ ?


I thought we were discussing the fact that the online Q&A is not actually in the rule book, and if you have never heard of the online Q&A but you read the rule book and genuinely try to play by the rules as written, you can easily be confused by these two rules, and then you are left trying to figure out what the ruling should be. It doesn't really help to have some long-haired self-righteous dude telling you that there is an online rules Q&A that makes an official ruling on this scenario, as all kinds of weird people make all kinds of non-rules call all over the course that are wrong, yet those other people were all self-righteously confident in those other wrong rulings, too. :)

Will there be a 2006 rulebook; is that a done-deal? :p

Chuck,

Just read the 2006 update. There will be no provision for moving any obstacles to stance, throwing motion or flight path between hole and lie (period). As Gary has been describing, and as our current rules read, you may take relief straight back. But you may not move stuff. Nothing.

It doesn't change what I heard from two members of the RC updating the Board.

You can't kick leaves and sh<d?>it out of the way? Ya' know just under foot?. Run ups would be done if you think about it.

It doesn't change what I heard from two members of the RC updating the Board.



Perhaps they did say it, but unless it gets into the draft and approved it won't happen. Consider the language that would be absolutely necessary to make this proposed change and the implications it would have for the rest of our rules?

Are obstacles to stance and footing NOT obstacles? Only ones to some nebulous "flight path"? Considering how the wind effects the flight of a disc, nothing between, next to or even behind the lie and pin would be "NOT" in the flight path. It is an untenable idea.

It needs to stay black and white as it always has been. Because some (or so many) have misinterpretted it for so long in not a valid reason to institutionalize it. The rule as writen (and if properly learned) has no grey areas (see Gary's posts on this topic).

If language can be found, great! Let's see it; in the exact and precise form that it will be used in the finished update.

i am confused as hell. i have read this entire thread (why i have no idea) but it states CLEARLY as hell in rule 803.04B & C that BROKEN LIMBS not attached can be REMOVED from you lie
B: A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round.
C: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

so why is this discussion still going or am i not reading something right :confused: :confused: :confused:

The bold text below takes precedence over section C. Though C.(2) may be used to gain relief from casual obstacles that are both behind and in front of your lie as described in the Q & A Section of our Online Rules, and will be more precisely clarified in the 2006 Rules Update (as it is currently written).

The trick to use is the step on mini lie clear method for tiny stuff on the ground. You can hold the stuff in front of you lie perfectly still will kicking what is directly behind your lie aside. But don't think �inadvertently moving� includes getting into your stance, that is a clear violation of our rules of play. �Inadvertent movement� is only allowed during the actually throw, not the taking of the stance or warm up throws, those would be equivalent to holding back a branch or backing into a bush (illegal).

<font color="green"> 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.

B. Obstacles Between the Lie and Hole: A player may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle between the lie and the hole, with one exception. A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.

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.

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

F. A player who purposely damages 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).

</font>

I understand the question posed at the beginning of this thread and have read the arguments to follow. but let me recap to see if i have it straight. Nick a dead stick is lying in the fareway of a wooded course. any stick 1 foot in length 3 feet in length no difference dead and not attached to any living plant it is just a stick lying in the fareway of a wooded course. (for the sake of arguement we will assume the course is wooded and not on an executive ball course or what not) my great drive comes to rest in a tournament round on the stick and it is affecting my upshot be it 30 feet or 330 feet. it is your contention that i can not mark my disc with the lye given and remove the stick before throwing with out incurring some penalty

(If the stick is both behind your lie and in front of it) It is more than my contention, it is the correct ruling. You may not move the part of the stick that is infront of your lie.

If it is your contention that it is so small that it doesn't make any difference, then you should have no objection to throwing with it there. If not, then clearly it would be an advantage (unfair one according to the rules) to move the stick.

If it is your contention that you can not avoid such stuff on a wooded course and therefore we should allow course maintenence during official PDGA competitive rounds, then again, your contention is not supported by our rules of play. It is up to the course pro and host club to make sure their course is ready for play, anything left there should be protected to ensure as similar a challenge as possible for all competitors.

More?


I understand the question posed at the beginning of this thread and have read the arguments to follow. but let me recap to see if i have it straight. Nick a dead stick is lying in the fareway of a wooded course. any stick 1 foot in length 3 feet in length no difference dead and not attached to any living plant it is just a stick lying in the fareway of a wooded course. (for the sake of arguement we will assume the course is wooded and not on an executive ball course or what not) my great drive comes to rest in a tournament round on the stick and it is affecting my upshot be it 30 feet or 330 feet. it is your contention that i can not mark my disc with the lye given and remove the stick before throwing with out incurring some penalty

if that is the case that i should have been stroked plenty in the 10 tournaments i have palyed in N.C. and florida. a tiers to c teirs if there is a dead tree limb in my way i move it. if i ever get penailized for moving a peice if debree from the fare way i will quite the PDGA and never spend another penny with the organization. that rule and this discussion has to be the silliest thing i have ever made myself a part of. i started reading this section of the web site a few days ago and man i never thought something as silly as this would ever be beaten to death on a 13 page thread. what is the reason? how is it an unfair advantage to removing something that should not be there in the first place. what is the reason for the rule is it to jsut make the sport harder for no reason? what is the retional for this rule. it makes no sense to me at all. think i will stick to reading the tournamnet page.BOOOO

I will admit I have not waded through the entire thread. I have read about 5 pages at the beginning and the end. Its now autumn. A nice wooded hole. There are sticks, leave and debris everywhere. There is literally no spot on the hole that is not covered. This is not a rare situation. Its the way things will be from now until April. Sure, I can take a stance and throw. However, I still have over 200 feet to go. I can't take a runup? Its not safe to run up over this stuff. I will be playing in a non-sanctioned tournament this weekend and three of the holes are in the forest. I suspect that the entire floor is covered by leave etc. Beautiful? Yes. Slippery? ubetcha!

You can clear any debris behind your lie to give you better footing and/or runup zone as long as none of that debris is also partly in front of your lie.

you can celar the runup. just dont clear anything in front of your lie. its really that simple.

that weekend at Tx States i landed real tight to edge of a forest lined fairway, smack dab in the middle of a bunch of small dead shule. two longer, cut twigs/branches (<1/2 diameter, 4-5 feet length) crisscrossed and my disc lay on top of the their intersection point. half of them were behind, half in front. i actually stepped in my disc so that i would not budge the twigs while i cleared the space immediately behind my lie.

disc golf started in the trees, with a play it where it lies and deal with the obstacles in front of you philosophy. not moving anything in front of the lie is true to the roots of the sport. moving something in front of the lie is cheating, knowingly or not.

And your point? That our rulebook should garrantee good footing? Deal with it, it's called golf. That and mention to the TD that they might want to clean up their course a little prior to running an event there. (At which point I hope they hand you a rake and say get too it.)

And dude before, if I see you move something that is between you lie and hole that is not permitted to be moved by our rules, I will call it. And about the "quitting" there is a saying about that door knob not hitting you where the sun don't shine on your way out.

Not liking a rule is not a good enough reason not to follow it. If you dislike it that much then you should appeal to the PDGA Rules Committee with your solid and logical reasons why. And they were? That you'd quit the sport... was that it?

And dude before, if I see you move something that is between you lie and hole that is not permitted to be moved by our rules, I will call it.



:confused: Odds are that if you and I are playing and I land in the leaves, debris etc, I will ask you for a ruling before making my play. I agree that we should play by the rules. Rules ensure that we all play the same game on the same course regardless of local conditions. If I move a leaf that I was not supposed to move and you mention it to me, I will keep it in mind and avoid the mistake. If you instantly call me on it with a penalty I suspect we would both have a lousy time for the rest of the round.

In any case, I suspect we would not be in the same group. I play rec and rarely place in the so-called money. I am out there to enjoy myself, learn the game, and try to improve. If its a learning experience, its a good thing. If its a trap for the uninformed the forest will be so quiet that you can hear a twig drop. That's no fun.

Moving a leaf would be tough to call from a logistical stand point. Moving a stick that is clearly in your stance and between the lie and hole would not be as tough to call.

Remember, there is a difference between inadvertent and purposeful. As well as in taking your stance and throwing motion. Moving that leaf of stick during the actual throwing motion of the throw is permitted, you just can't purposefully or through carelessness in taking your stance move it or it is a violation of our rules.

The whole point, and I am very much in favor of it, is to have players be more aware of their stance as it relates to obstacles, whether to footing , stance, throwing motion or flight path; all are an important part of disc golf and in maintaining a fair and consistent challenge to competitors at a event.

you guys need to get a life. call it all you want who cares the sport is about having fun. night it'speople like you that turn people away from this sport everyday. you can't even get along with people that are so into the sport that they live on this message board. you are a kook plain and simple.

:confused: Odds are that if you and I are playing and I land in the leaves, debris etc, I will ask you for a ruling before making my play. I agree that we should play by the rules. Rules ensure that we all play the same game on the same course regardless of local conditions...


Most excellent attitude...however, ideally, the 'plan' is for the player to make the ruling [because every player knows the rules][ ;)]. Then, it takes a majority of the card [or an official] to 'overule' the player.

Conversely, there are a lot of people whom seem to think participating in an organized event means someone ELSE is there, to do the 'rule-calling/rulings'.

....reading DISCussion is a good way to stay up-to-date with the rules! :)

The discussion seems to have fluttered down to include dead leaves as well as dead branches now. Here�s a scenario to ponder: I am playing a wooded course in the autumn and throw down the fairway only to slide off to the side and behind a large tree. There are leaves under my lie and some of them extend in front of my lie. I site this rule and decide to move my lie backwards and on line from the target. Since there will be leaves under my lie wherever I place it, with some extending in front of my lie, can I now legally place my lie anywhere along the five meter line without incurring a penalty? If so, then we have essentially created a five meter lie when playing in the woods when leaves are present. Now that should come in handy.

...what # rule are you invoking? :confused:

I am no zink but I will hazard a guess: 803.04c(2)

OK, that's the one where you must first TRY and remove the obstacle, then [failing to do so] move to the NEAREST lie. In the example zink [?] gave, the leaf would have to be GREATER THAN 5 METER IN LENGTH to make any sense... :confused:

[eventually, that leaf IN FRONT of the lie will NOT be also sticking behind]

Like standing on a giant Canadian flag or something... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

...sounds legal. That should protect th' $neakers, which is the whole spirt-of-the-rule.

Like standing on a giant Canadian flag or something... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



holy cow......whats up with the canadian bashing of late mr. kennedy????? dont you live in minnesota? the southern-most province of canada? i would think you would love those crazy canooks.... :D the people who gave us hockey and the red green show..... :D they love us americans to death, shouldnt we love them back just as much :eek: :) :p ???????
im going out trick or treatin tonite as a royal canadian mounted policeman , i think your house will be the first one i visit.......look for me...... :D

No reason for the Canadian motif today, it just worked out that way, eh. I'll try to leaf them alone now.

I�m not talking about flag-sized leaves here, just regular oak and maple. If the ground is covered with leaves, no matter where on the five meter line you decide to move your marker, there is going to be another leaf that is under your lie and partially extending in front of your marker. Each time you take relief and move your marker back, you fine yourself in the same situation with a different leaf.

...as for your position on the flag, I canuck understand why you'd wave 'er such.

I�m not talking about flag-sized leaves here, just regular oak and maple. If the ground is covered with leaves, no matter where on the five meter line you decide to move your marker, there is going to be another leaf that is under your lie and partially extending in front of your marker. Each time you take relief and move your marker back, you fine yourself in the same situation with a different leaf.



clear a spot behind your lie big enough to put your marker in AND big enough to have a stance in. It's really easy. Why would you think you have to move leaves after you move marker?

I�m not talking about flag-sized leaves here, just regular oak and maple. If the ground is covered with leaves, no matter where on the five meter line you decide to move your marker, there is going to be <font color="red">another leaf that is under your lie and partially extending in front of your marker.</font>


You have SINGLE Oak leaves there which can reach from in-front-of the marker to FIVE METERS [16 feet, 4 and 25/32th inch] BEHIND?!? ONE leaf is that big??? Is your real name "Gulliver"? :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Seriously, if the leaf extends to both sides, it cannot be removed. It can be stepped-upon, but not removed. :cool:
Replace leaf with 'object', etc. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Like standing on a giant Canadian flag or something... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



What ? You mean , stand on it and pound it ?

http://www.centxdglove.com/putterman.gif

This is probably too silly to pursue, but I will try to make my point one last time. Loose leaves are considered casual obstacles. Players may obtain relief from casual obstacles. Rule 803.04-C(1) says the player must first try to move the obstacle, but many people on this thread contend that the obstacle cannot be moved if any part of it extends in front of the lie. So the player�s lie may now be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the original lie. To me the phrase �the player�s lie may be relocated� means that the player moves his marker disc to the place where the lie is to be relocated, thereby establishing a new lie. So, my original lie is on a leaf that extends in front of the lie. I cannot move the leaf so I may now relocate my lie. I pick up my marker disc and place it somewhere on the line of play and within five meters of the original lie. I then step up to my new lie and notice that there is another leaf under this lie that extends in front of my lie (this is inevitable when playing a wooded course in the autumn). My question is, can I now obtain relief from this new obstacle (leaf), that is under my newly relocated lie? If the answer is yes, then anywhere I relocate my lie along the five meter line is subject to being relocated again. This essentially allows a player to relocate the lie anywhere along the five meter line. A player could use this ruling to move a lie in order a make a shot around a tree easier.
This is convoluted because it is purely theoretical. I have never actually seen a player invoke the five meter relief rule because there were leaves or twigs on their lie. In my circle it has always been settled law that a player can move leaves and twigs from their lie before throwing.

Player would clear the leaves behind the original mark with the exception of the leaf that's under and partly in front of their mini. Then, if necessary, move the mini back a few centimeters on the line of play so they don't have to step on that leaf. No one is going back up to 5m in this example, if it's my group at least.

Stuff Between Lie and Hole



YOU CAN'T TOUCH IT.......PERIOD!

leaf, twig, branch, mud clot, dirt, bug, dead body, etc......

That is the common sense approach Chuck.
In theory, his interpretation stands up.
Nothing states that you should attempt to clear debris from behind your lie before attempting to relocate it. It makes perfect sense, and failure to do so would lead to the situation he describes, but it is not required. It's not worth a wording change, and I don't think it would even merit a Q&A entry, but it is a supportable interpretation.

Much like the putting stance where the lead foot is well in front of the mini and lifted just before the disc is released. Technically it's legal, but I wouldn't really want to argue it with the TD.

Player would clear the leaves behind the original mark with the exception of the leaf that's under and partly in front of their mini. <font color="blue">Then, if necessary, move the mini back a few centimeters</font> on the line of play so they don't have to step on that leaf. No one is going back up to 5m in this example, if it's my group at least.



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. A player may instead choose, without touching or repositioning the thrown disc, to use the thrown disc as the marker. The marker may not be moved until the throw is released. A marker inadvertently moved prior to the throw shall be returned to its correct location

Having a clear notion of the rules is not silly!
"Rule 803.04-C(1) says the player must first try to move the obstacle, but many people on this thread contend that the obstacle cannot be moved if any part of it extends in front of the lie." That's not a mere contention, but the rules. Your circle may play differently, but just be aware in a PDGA-sanctioned event, that is not allowed.

"What Chuck said." ;)

You have 30 cm on the LOP behind your mark to take your stance. You don't have to be right up next to your marker, and in fact the rules forbid stepping or making contact with your marker until the throw is released.

In all but the must bizarre circumstances, you should be able to clear a spot within 11.8 inches of your disc.

In any event, you only get 5 meters from your original lie. You don't get 5m + 5m + 5m ad infinitum. If you can't clear the leaves because there is a 12+ inch leaf spanning your lie and you can't find a clearable lie within 5 meters of the original lie, you have only two choices: throw from the leaf or else take an unsafe lie relocation.

In all but the must bizarre circumstances, you should be able to clear a spot within 11.8 inches of your disc.



30cm = 11.81088 inches, but I seem to recall a 11.5" "conversion" in the rulebook....similar to the way 10 meters gets 'rounded-up' from 32' 9&9/16th">>>32' 10"..........hmmmmm; where dat book at? http://themooneysuzuki.com/media/common/emoticons/rollseyes.gif

11 3/4

The discussion seems to have fluttered down to include dead leaves as well as dead branches now. Here�s a scenario to ponder: I am playing a wooded course in the autumn and throw down the fairway only to slide off to the side and behind a large tree. There are leaves under my lie and some of them extend in front of my lie. I site this rule and decide to move my lie backwards and on line from the target. Since there will be leaves under my lie wherever I place it, with some extending in front of my lie, can I now legally place my lie anywhere along the five meter line without incurring a penalty? If so, then we have essentially created a five meter lie when playing in the woods when leaves are present. Now that should come in handy.



A leaf or other tiny ground debris would be considered "playing surface". It becomes an obstacle as soon as you say "This is too difficult for me to deal with I need relief." In addition there is a rule for dealing with obstacles you can not due to rules or impracticality move.

If the wittle sticky is messin' with you then you have the option of moving back, inadvertantly moving it during your throw is still permitted otherwise.

Player would clear the leaves behind the original mark with the exception of the leaf that's under and partly in front of their mini. Then, if necessary, move the mini back a few centimeters on the line of play so they don't have to step on that leaf. No one is going back up to 5m in this example, if it's my group at least.



Anything beyond this point is an attempt to confuse the issue. Rules do not go into the details of all that you can do nor into all of the details of what is a this or a that. To do so would fill the Library of Congress 13 times. Instead it states clearly what you can't do.

As in: You can't move anything between your lie and the hole unless it is known to have become a factor during the round. How you accomplish this is on you.

In the case of my friend Wayne, on a fall day with leaves covering the ground he will likely have to keep backing up until he crosses the permanent spring to fall zone. :D

Seriously Wayne, consider that your lie is still where it was, your stance just changes so that you aren't likely or purposefully moving anything between your lie and the hole. If your lie actually changed then that 5 meters could go on for ever.

I'm going to recommend to the rules committee that they provide a little more guidance on this. Perhaps that leaves be removed from the object list and added to the playing surface list. In either case if you can't find relief from a leaf within 5 meters you aren't trying...

clear a spot behind your lie big enough to put your marker in AND big enough to have a stance in. It's really easy!!!!!!!!!

That'd be cool except that the marker goes in front of the lie.

:D

Thanks John, I forgot that part. :D:D:cool::cool:

That'd be cool except that the marker goes in front of the lie.



not if you move it back

That'd be cool except that the marker goes in front of the lie.



not if you move it back



Where's your smirk etc?

That'd be cool except that the marker goes in front of the lie.



not if you move it back


Where's your smirk etc?


:mad:

;)

:D :p

I see now. My bad.

clear a spot behind your lie big enough to put your "relocated" marker in AND big enough to have a stance in. It's really easy!!!!!!!!!

I see now. My bad.

clear a spot behind your lie big enough to put your "relocated" marker in AND big enough to have a stance in. It's really easy!!!!!!!!!



No, all you need to do is clear the spot that will be directly behind where you put your mini, so that you will have no possibility of moving anything between your lie and the hole when you run up or take your stance.

Not even a leaf...

I've noticed the folks that thought moving stuff that is between your lie and hole and in your throwing motion have stopped pushing the idea that they can, or should be able to pull down that vine or hit it with their practice swing until it falls down.

Why the change of heart?