At the Brandywine breeze some players were very critical of the new lost disc rule where if a player loses their disc they have to go back to their previous lie (the tee pad in most cases at Brandywine.

At Brandywine this can involve a very long up hill walk back to the tee, and it happened at least twice that I am aware of.

WHAT THESE FOLKS FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR IN THEIR CRITICISM IS THAT IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DISC WILL BE ABLE TO BE FOUND THE THROWER SHOULD TAKE A PROVISIONAL THUS AVOIDING THE WALK OF SHAME.

Don't feel bad for forgetting this option, I almost did it myself, until another player mentioned it, so I used it.

Of course my prov-shot part the pin, and yes of course we found my disc off in the shule...

Moral of the story, don't be afraid to throw that provisional shot if you think finding your drive is in question. A spotter should be able to tell from just watching the general area the disc lands in whether or not a provisional might be advisable. In any case the provisional should make those long walks back to the tee very rare.

The change to the lost disc rule stinks.

i disagree. if my disc ends up lost, to quote Led Zeppelin, it's Nobodys Fault But Mine. i should either play a safer shot or take the risk and execute well. certain holes may benefit from spotters and from grooming to decrease rough from being too blinding.

my home course (Idlewild) has plenty of dense woods and length and potential for lost discs if i want to shoot for the moon.

the new lost disc penalty seemed to me a bit too punitive at first but when i take into account the benefit it provides of removing the too potentially controversial "where last seen" scenario, and also considering that it's up to me to know the drawbacks of risking losing my disc if i go for more than i can handle, the new rule seems okay to me now

dude, if your disc ends up 40 feet up in a tree its your fault also. how come no penalty there? if you cant acheive detailed consistancy you could at least develop a coherent set of guiding principles. :eek:

dude, if your disc ends up 40 feet up in a tree its your fault also. how come no penalty?



Play NORCAL and it is a P.

Many courses don't get prepped as much as the TD would like. Discs down the middle can be lost in leaves and tall grass, even with everybody watching.

Plus you really get screwed when someone picks up your disc-in-play and returns it to tourney central. You still get the penalty stroke dropped, but before you were left in the general vicinity and now you start over.

A. Never throw a provisional in that circumstance. Take the walk. If the disc should turn out to be lost, on your next throw at least you will have spotters.

B. Over two meters is a penalty at the IOS tournaments also.

and it almost always is in texas. god bless norcal god bless ios god bless texas :cool:

dude, if your disc ends up 40 feet up in a tree its your fault also. how come no penalty there? if you cant acheive detailed consistancy you could at least develop a coherent set of guiding principles. :eek:



Pat, i know you tend to be open-minded and capable of seeing beyond your own biases -- but this is so axiomatic it may be difficult for you to get :eek:

a disc that lands 40 feet up in a tree is the penalty. the tree acted like the obstacle it is and it stopped your errant throw. plus, as an added penal bonus, it caught your disc and now you are going to have to go on without it. treat it just like the disc that gets caught 1.8 meters high and play on -- you already have gotten penalized by the poor result. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

so you see the consistency is if you misplay you get stuck with the consequences and there's no need for an additional stroke. that would be like penalizing a missed putt above and beyond the problem it already has landed you with :p

it is sad the way this is polarizing with you and Rhett and Bruce on one side and me and Nick on the other (and Chuck btw). Quit using the exception (a dumb hole with the pin right underneathe a sticky tree) and think of what usually occurs. i haven't been stuck above 2 meters except once in about 1000 of my latest rounds and i play very wooded courses all the time. (the stick was not in a tourney and was way off fairway so 2 meter penalties would have been double jeopardy).

I didn't mention the 2-meter rule.

But I did get a 2-meter penalty last weekend at the Morley Field Spring Fling. I don't know where you play, but I see or get a 2-meter penalty in almost every single tournament I play in.

In addition to incredible claims like "1 in a thousand rounds" for 2-meter occurance, you anti-2-meter guys also claim that no one would ever alter their shot and aim at a tree. But there I was playing in the Golden State Classic earlier this month, taking the high route through some extremely sticky trees guarding the basket, and the only reason I took or even considered that route was because the TD chose to not have the 2-meter rule in effect. With the 2-meter rule in effect I never take that route and instead try to throw a low one between the bottom branches and the anti-skip grass. Having no 2-meter rule changes that hole for my skill level from a "get a 4 and pick up a stroke on most people in your division" to a fairly straightforward 4 every time for everyone that can avoid disaster. Quite a change..

aw man ya spoiled my troll

In addition to incredible claims like "1 in a thousand rounds" for 2-meter occurance, you anti-2-meter guys also claim that no one would ever alter their shot and aim at a tree.



Rhett, i am reporting my experience -- not being dishonest. (though i probably should have said 100 rounds now i just did the math and i only play about twice a week or 100 rounds a year) if you listen to Carlton's PDGA radio interview when he spoke about the change -- he used to favor the 2 meter rule until he reflected upon how rarely and inconsistently it comes into play and how more often than not it is double jeopardy). i don't think he had any reason to make that up being a RC member who cares a great deal about competitive disc golf and our PDGA Rules of Play. i also don't think you can accuse Chuck Kennedy of unscientific assessments regarding his opposition to the 2 meter rule :p

the only time i aim at a tree is to use a thick cedar tree as a brake, but i am conditioned to aim lower than 2 meters. (by the old flukey rule and because i don't want to lose my disc). if the pin is right near a sticky tree it is a design issue. move the pin or or declare that tree OB whether you are 2 feet or 2 meters up in it.

It feels like you are calling me a liar because my disc golf experiences with the 2 meter rule are different than yours.

I don't like that feeling.

ditto /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I still use the 2m rule where warranted. In general it's not in effect but on at least one hole at Highbridge all trees have 2m on them. I haven't run events on all my course designs so I don't know where else I might elect to use it but expect that I might. I'm TD this weekend on a course I didn't design and am doing recon tomorrow to see what we should do for 2m.

How many people are using 2m as now intended, similar to water that is not OB by default? I have some water hazards that aren't OB but casual.

OMG!

Not again.

I've played in 4 PDGAs this year. 3 without 1 with. At the one 1 I saw 2 2MR violations. Both were way over punitive for the situation; 1 about 50 feet off the tee, another 250 feet from the pin.

I can't think of a single tree I'd use the 2MR on over casual area or OB; both of which function perfectly and more consistantly.

I'd like to think that we are discussing this, but past experionce leads me to belive that nothing is really happening here.

Move along, move along, nothing to see here...

I wouldn't have any problem with making a whole tree OB and the whole area underneathe it. If 2 meters up is a penalty why should all the ones that trickle down get free pass? if the whole area is OB you know the risk. To only penalize the one out of whatever shots with similar trajectories that stick makes only 1 out of whatever sense

I wouldn't have any problem with making a whole tree OB and the whole area underneathe it. If 2 meters up is a penalty why should all the ones that trickle down get free pass? if the whole area is OB you know the risk. To only penalize the one out of whatever shots with similar trajectories that stick makes only 1 out of whatever sense



Precisimundo!

I'd like to think that we are discussing this, but past experionce leads me to belive that nothing is really happening here.


Exactly. Nick is involved.

The 2004 PDGA Radio News segment in which Rule Committee Chair Carlton Howard explains the rationale behind
eliminating the 2 meter rule:

http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/2004/rn2004-10-11.wma
^ Windows Media Player ^
------------------------------------------------

http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/2004/rn2004-10-11.ram
^ Real Player ^
--------------------------------------------------

If the disc lands in a pond and cannot be found does the stroke and distance rule apply? Or does the Last point in bounds rule apply to the next shot?

I am sure that this has been discussed in other threads but I cannot find it.

If you saw it go OB you play it from where it went in.

check here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Rules&Number=520746&page=5 &view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1) ... to read a thread that sort of covered your question earlier ...

the key phrase in the rule book with regard to your question
is reasonable evidence (as opposed to say reasonable doubt).


803.09 Out-of-Bounds
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.03 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds. In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B


(emphasis added)

so if a thrower drives from a tee over a hill where the landing is blind and there is a lake behind the pin, and the disc leaves the thrower's hand as if it may be too long -- and we walk over the hill and there is no sign of the disc and there is only low-cut grass surrounding said lake and the disc was bright red: i would vote that there was reasonable evidence you landed OB and i would argue we should guestimate where it was last IB and have you play from there (w/ penalty). (if there was high grass i guess we'd search for it for a few minutes)

Thanks, that settles it.

so if a thrower drives from a tee over a hill where the landing is blind and there is a lake behind the pin, and the disc leaves the thrower's hand as if it may be too long -- and we walk over the hill and there is no sign of the disc and there is only low-cut grass surrounding said lake and the disc was bright red: i would vote that there was reasonable evidence you landed OB and i would argue we should guestimate where it was last IB and have you play from there (w/ penalty).


or better yet, have someone spot :cool:

:D i was trying to create a scenario to answer his question -- i too would prefer having one person in the group spot on a hole like that ;)

word

heres my opinion. the 2 meter rule makes complete sense and should be a part of the game. you should be stroked for throwing it so high in a tree. you dont want a penalty stroke dont throw it in a tree. now that its not in effect i have seen people intentionaly throw into trees and thats not good for the sport. my home course circle c in austin you are sorrounded by trees the entire round and if you have an errant shot it may very well end up stuck but there are clearly defined fairways for you to land in and all you have to do is land in these fairways to avoid getting penalties. now i understand 2 shots headed to the same spot with the exact same trajectory one gets stuck the other goes to the ground. i dont question why one has to take a stroke and not the other cause i know luck is a part of golf and the stuck guy just wasnt lucky today. but i am sure some good luck will come his way soon enough.
heres my vote for the 2M rule to be a part of the game.

playing too many casual rounds these days were someone gets stuck and says are we playing 2m rule or not. i liked the good old days when that question didnt have to be asked.
you get stuck in a tree you pay thats what i say.

I wouldn't have any problem with making a whole tree OB and the whole area underneathe it. If 2 meters up is a penalty why should all the ones that trickle down get free pass? if the whole area is OB you know the risk. To only penalize the one out of whatever shots with similar trajectories that stick makes only 1 out of whatever sense



Because a disc greater than 2-meters up a tree requires a retrieval action. Retrieval actions take time and usually damage trees. Why doesn't retrieval of disc ever come up in this discussion?

There is a difference between a disc that can't be easily retrieved and one that can. If you're gonna draw a line between the two, 2-meters is a great place to start.

On a course like Seneca, if you declared the area under a Cedar tree OB, you would create the nightmare of people having to measure absolutely straight lines from the outermost point of a Cedar tree branch down to the ground. That would not be an easy thing to do. Plus, the probability of going OB in this scenario would be dramatically greater. Sorry, but I disagree with the sentiment that an area that has a lot of cedar trees shouldn't be used for a disc golf fairway. It's not "poor design", it's good use of the parcel of land you've been given to work with. Remember, not all land that park's give for golf courses is primo property. Sometimes all they give you is shule-riddled crapland.

I think the 2-meter compromise works well. Let courses that need it declare it. My point is to keep the "retrieval action" aspect in the conversation.

The new lost disc rule isn't working. The option of taking a provisional everytime the disc may or may not be lost is ridiculous. So everytime I throw a blind hole I can throw a provisional because it "might" not get found. Dumb. I think the tour players will agree that this rule needs revision.

So everytime I throw a blind hole I can throw a provisional because it "might" not get found. Dumb. I think the tour players will agree that this rule needs revision.


Not just on a blind hole....any time you don't see your disc come to rest. The rules comittee claims that the rule was changed to save time. But consider how much time it would take if you threw a provisional everytime your disc went out of sight and was possibly lost.

Doesn't the group have to agree to the use of the provisional? If so, kind of reduces the merit of this criticism.

I personally have not noticed this rule change to have ever slowed down play due to people throwing excessive provisionals. However, one could argue that coming back to the tee has been a cause of slow play.

the decision to play a provisional is the players decision, not the group's. in fact, the original erason for a provi was to allow the player a choice when he disagrees with the rest of the group. even if the group tells him he may not play a provi, he still can play one penalty free.

If the disc lands in a pond and cannot be found does the stroke and distance rule apply? Or does the Last point in bounds rule apply to the next shot?

I am sure that this has been discussed in other threads but I cannot find it.



Nice.

It kinda depends on the pond. If you throw it across and it rolls back in , you take it from the last in-bounds area or drop zone.
If it does not even make it across , you throw from a drop zone , before crossing the pond.

Doesn't the group have to agree to the use of the provisional? If so, kind of reduces the merit of this criticism.


<font color="red">True, the group has to agree. But I have seen this happen twice. Player throws, disc goes out of sight, but no one thinks it is lost, they get there, can't find disc and look for 3 minutes, declare it lost, player goes back to top of HUGE hill to retee, total time, 10-15 minutes.</font>
Not to mention the double walks of shame.

Could you point me to that in the rules? I remember this discussion a while back. I am old and forgot, but in looking up the definition of provisional, it implied that it was group decision.

I was under the impression that provisionals for speed of play were a group decision, and provisionals based on arguments were up to the player getting possibly screwed.

from the definitions it says "Additionally, a set of provisional throws that will be allowed to complete a hole as an alternative to the original play of the hole, when there is a disputed ruling. " implying that provis can be used when the rule is disputed

Could you point me to that in the rules?



803.01 C:

C.Provisional Throws. Provisional throws are extra throws that are not added to a player�s score if they are not ultimately used in completion of the hole. The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional would speed play or when the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling. The unused throws shall not be added to the thrower�s score nor treated as practice throws if the player announces that such additional throws are made as provisional throws prior to taking them. Provisional throws are appropriate in the following circumstances:
(1) To save time: A player may declare a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules.
(2) To appeal the group�s or an official�s ruling: A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole pursuant to 803.01 D
(3) when the player disagrees with the majority group decision and an official is not readily available, or if the player wishes to appeal the decision of an official. The scores from both sets of throws shall be recorded. The proper ruling and score are then determined by the director at the end of the round.

Nice ................................."The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional would speed play or when the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling."

2 and 3 are the same thing.

Thanks for the info. I must interpret the language differently than Pat, but I still would say that the use of provisionals for speed of play must at a minimum, adhere to this:

(b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time

Therefore, unless the majority of the group on a blind hole agrees to allow provisional after provisional, I don't forsee any "excessive use of provisionals."

and since the pdga is encouraging players to throw provis when their disc cannot be seen to land, it would seem unlikely that anyone could possibly claim excessive use of the rule.

So if the group doesn't think you need to throw a provisional, and you throw one anyway, can they stroke you for a practice throw???

and since the pdga is encouraging players to throw provis when their disc cannot be seen to land



I don't agree that the PDGA is "encouraging" anything of the sort. I see this part of the new rule to be very progressive: we used to have to watch the throw land right near the edge of OB, none of us knew for sure, but by rule, we had to walk up there and find out and then walk back if it was OB. The rule now allows us the freedom to eliminate the time wasted by the potential walk back and rethrow. Seems like a positive rule change to me. In fact, short of allowed intentional abuse, I can see no possible criticism of the logic of the freer use of provisionals to save time.

well, i am not htrowing any provis until i can know for sure my disc is lost. throwing the provi first removes somes advantages you might want later.

and no, throwing a provi even if the group doesnt want you to cannot end up in a penalty for the thrower.

well, i am not htrowing any provis until i can know for sure my disc is lost. throwing the provi first removes somes advantages you might want later.



I also vaguely remember this discussion, but it is long gone from my memory.


and no, throwing a provi even if the group doesnt want you to cannot end up in a penalty for the thrower.


Unless this is laid out clearly in the rules, or an official rules interpretation, I strongly disagree. In fact, if the group majority says "no" to the use of a provisional, and the player proceeds to do it anyway, I am calling a practice throw, and there is a probably a good possibility of a second.

Before that player ignores the group decision and decides to throw, he should hear a little Clint Eastwood speech questioning the wisdom of his next action. ;)

I have not had any issues with players throwing provisionals , in fact it may hold off some heated arguments during the rounds.

nothing precludes the use of a provi. all you need to do is a) dispute the call of the group; and b) claim a provi will save time (which it is gauranteed to do unless a TD is nearby)

there is no way you could get in trouble if you do both of those.

In your interpretation. I feel that you are needlessly misinterpreting the language, and I suspect you know it. I'm not sure if you are trying to make the point that the language is unclear and the rule needs some tweaking, but there is certainly an alternative interpretation.

I'm no lawyer, and we have no courts, but the language and intent is pretty **** clear in my mind, and using the rules, I have a viable argument. My burden is much less than the thrower of the unallowed provisional. First, I have to convince others in the group. More than likely since they are disc golfers, they will not be interested in the actual argument. However, they will be interested in the fact that the player just intentionally flaunted their call. Therefore, my argument will probably be an easy sell to them. More than likely, the practice throw call is seconded and a stroke is added.

The player can then appeal the group's decision to the TD. Best of luck on their appeal. Just as I stated above, the TD will hear two arguments. I have no idea how he/she will decide.

The bottom line is that the player will be taking a wholely unnecessary risk (my take) for what? Just to prove a point that the rules are not clear in their mind, or to save some energy? Seems like a real bad gamble to me.

actually, i honestly believe that a player may throw a provi when he wishes. i am not trying to say the rule is unclear. in fact i believe the rule is quite clear.

look, all you need to do is show that a provi will take less time. what if the group claims otherwise? unless a td or official is very nearby, they would be wrong, because a throw is a whole heck of a lot faster than finding an official in most cases.

btw, i wouldnt throw a provi just to mess with the rules. but if there was any doubt about the throw or a ruling or whatever, i wont hesitate to thrown one.

I suppose you can always throw a provisional.

James seem to be saying this: you say you are going to throw a privisionsal to save time. The group does not agree that it will save time and the group decision is that you cannot throw a provisional.

Since you disagree with the group, you can now throw a provisional because you disagree with the group ruling. :p

exactly

What if you think the provisional is "lost"? Can you throw a provisional provisional? Sorry, I have to ask.

It's pretty clear to me at least that "the disagree with the group scenario" is based on a ruling given by the group which the player disputes; thus a provisional. It clearly is not intended to apply to the scenarios where provisionals are used to save time.

The business about saving time clearly requires permission by the group. It was that "b" section I bolded. I see no ifs, ands or buts. I also don't see that "lack of group permission," by its very nature, is open to "disagreement," or that it is "appealable."

In practical terms, I feel that Pat is giving bad advice to anyone who feels compelled to throw a provisional after being denied permission. It's certainly bad advice if they are on my card.

I suppose you like the new rule? I have never heard of a group not allowing a provisional to be thrown. Seems like your just trying to be a hardass. :eek:

i'm not giving advise to anyone, believe me. the only thing i am saying is that if i have any clue that a group ruling is inaccurate or wrong or even questionable/discussable, then i will absolutely throw a provi regardless of what the group thinks about it. as long as i have an argument that is understandable, a practice throw will not be assessed by the td. if somehow it does, then oh well.

oh yeah, i was on a group one time where the player DID actually have two different provis going on at the same time. i forget the details (something that complicated i'd prolly not get right anyway) but it was rather wierd.

Let me be clear, there are two types of provisionals:

1. Used to save time. In my experience, this is always when the group watches a shot, is unsure if it is OB or not, but does not wish to walk up and there and find it is OB and then walk back. Yeah, I like this rule and being lazy, I will gladly agree to allowing someone to throw a provisional if the status of the disc is unclear. It simply saves time. I'm all for it, BUT, the rule says that in order to throw this type of provisional, there must be permission by the group.

2. Used when there are disagreements on "what is the proper call." In my experience, the common examples are disagreements on where to play an OB shot from, or disagreements based on the local course rules. Sometimes, this also includes common rule interpretations. If there is a disagreement among the group, the player getting possibly "screwed" is allowed to play a provisional, WITHOUT permission by the group.

Pat, apparently makes no distinction between these two types of scenarios. I maintain that the rules do. In fact, I think the rules are pretty **** clear in this regard. Pat is potentially describing a scenario where a player throws a shot. People in the group (from their vantage point near the lie the player just threw from) probably feel that it is clearly OB, or clearly safe, and don't allow him to throw a provisional. They see no need for a provisional. The player says "I disagree with you" and throws another shot. I maintain that shot is clearly a practice throw. I also do not think I am being an ***** for maintaining that position. In fact, I think the player blatantly flaunting the group's ruling is the *****.

James' last post made me think of a relevant question to the topic of the thread:

When a player's disc is declared lost and they have to rethrow from the previous spot, do two other players have to accompany the thrower back to the previous spot? I think the answer is "yes".

On further inspection, if you embrace Pat's line of thinking, what prevents me from putting and missing, asking the people in my group if they think the disc is in the basket or not, even though there is clearly no debate. They say it is on the ground. I say "I don't agree" and putt again.

Of course, noone would ever dream of letting me get away without calling a practice throw (and justifiable further discipline). It is pretty much the same scenario, taken to an extreme of course.

----------

Edit. Actually, technically, I would need to ask the ridiculous question "Is my disc out of bounds?" And they would say "Huh, what the hell." Then they would say, "No, it is right there." I say "I don't agree" and proceed to putt again.

Yes, this is part of the incentive to allow one to throw a provisional. Of course, noone probably actually walks back.

Having the observers already there compared to the unlikelihood that they will be there should the disc be OB is another good reason to allow a provisional, if there is doubt about the status of the disc of course.

On further inspection, if you embrace Pat's line of thinking, what prevents me from putting and missing, asking the people in my group if they think the disc is in the basket or not, even though there is clearly no debate.


Well, according to the rules, the TD prevents that when later the reason for the provisional is described to him. So I don't understand your point here.

I do take your point that in the case of saving time, when the status of a disc may be lost, or may have missed a mandatory, or may have gone OB, but you can't figure out which, it does look like you need group consensus to throw the provisional.

But if the group does think it knows the status of the disc, but you disagree with that ruling, then a provisional is something a player can decide to take on his own.

I think what usually happens "to save time" is the group makes up its mind about the status of a disc, so it's usually left up to you to agree with that ruling or not and then throw a provisional if you disagree. I think that's why the first part of the rule is probably not often invoked, because I've never before thrown in a group where the group had no opinion on the status of a disc.

james, i totally agree there are two types of provis. i dont think the rules are clear about that though.

however, as was pointed out, should players refuse a provi on the grounds that it will not save time, the thrower could simply throw anyway under the disputed ruling clause. and guess what - he would be correct. theres no way throwing now would be slower than walking down the fairway walking back then throwing.. i agree with you james, more completely than you realize. but whether by the rule itself (your second example) or by natural conclusion (your first), it is extremely difficult to deny a provisional throw.

I think in both answering both you and Paul related to my edited extremely ridiculous example, I dispute that the player is invoking the "disputed ruling clause" in those situations. I do not view the fact that the group thinks the status of the disc as "certain" to be a "ruling" that is open to challenge. It is their "view," but hardly a "ruling." In other words, it can't be realistically "disputed."

A ruling is something akin to "What are the tourney rules for this OB?" "Is this a playing surface?" "Does hitting the branch across the pond mean I touched over there?" etc. Things like that. I certainly can't dispute the fact that everyone in my group thinks with certainty that my disc is OB and thus there is no permission for a provisional.

I think in both answering both you and Paul related to my edited extremely ridiculous example, I dispute that the player is invoking the "disputed ruling clause" in those situations.


I agree with you. As I said in my post, the TD would take care of that nonsense, if anyone ever took such an extreme stance.

Most of my reply went on from there, unrelated to your extreme example. Let me know if you think I'm off base, but I think it's in line with your interpretation, where a group consensus is needed for the case where a disc status is in question. I just wonder if something like that will ever happen. I would expect a group always to come to a consensus on the status of the disc -- they'd come down somewhere and call it OB, lost, or a mando violation -- and you would throw a provisional only if you disagreed with their consensus.

But why a group would ever shrug their shoulders and not make some sort of judgment regarding the status of a disc is not clear to me. If they can't come to a consensus on the status of a disc, I wouldn't hold out much hope on a consensus ruling allowing or disallowing a provisional, either.

Similar to American Culture there seems to be an excessive lack of common sense being employed in this aimless jabbering.

When some of you actually experience what happens out on the course during a PDGA round, report back to us what you find; that should beat the living tar out of all of these hypothetical price of beans in Nebraska scenarios.

I have seen both situations and it is pretty clear from the one where the player has to walk all the way back to the tee pad that a provisional should have been used. If they choose not to, then the long walk is all on them.

Besides, what is the alternative, everyone, even the guys in the group that could care less or weren't watching in the first place get to give their buddy a great spot or screw their competitor with a bad spot? The new rule is clearly superior in it's fairness, increased vigilance in spotting, and in saving time as far as searching (due to there being a greater responsibility to spot).

The complaints come from folks that forget (forgot) that the player or they could have taken a provisional.

Advice: Don't forget the provisional.

The rule says that you can't take a provisional to save time on a disc whose status is in question unless the group allows it. You can't just choose to take a provisional without group support, in this one specific case. Are you arguing that the rule should be changed?

Nick, I realize some of the situations are assinine(?sp). But I believe the validity and dexterity of a rule are proven with off the wall scenario's, allbeit, EXTREME ones.
On that subject, here's a real life one that happened during a casual round and was wondering what the ruling would be in a tourney:
We are playing a 400ft hole with houses on the left that all have fenced in yards and are OB. To clear the houses is about 325ft. Player throws RHBH and we see it hyzer too quickly and go inside the yard OB, but it skips around the house out of sight. When we get to his "lie" there is no disc in the yard or past it. Then the person in the house waves his disc through the window and says "you aren't getting this back!" So, a) is this a lost disc? b) where does player take his lie from? retee?

Interference Rule 803.07A "...Alternatively, for intentional interference only, the thrower has an option of a rethrow..."

So, player gets to retee with no penalty and is throwing his first shot.

The player has the option to accept an OB penalty, on the assumption the disc was OB in the neighbor's backyard before being moved into the house, and mark accordingly. But I'm assuming the player would prefer the 'no penalty' rethrow instead.

First off, that's a terrible hole design.

But, (I'm too lazy to look up the rule #) the rules basically say that if the disc is either known, or assumed to have gone OB, then it is played as OB, not as a lost disc.

In your example, the disc is certainly not lost if it is being waved at you. However, it seems that the group is still has a problem: was the disc OB (played as OB) or was it IB and picked up by irate homeowner and thus played from where it was picked up.

btw, the phrase "to clear the houses is about 325ft" made me laugh. I imagine this conversation between a player and the caddie. But the bottom line is "redesign the hole."

We are not so lucky as to have the option of redesigning the hole, plus, the fairway is wide open to the Right. Only shanks go in the yards. Thanks Chuck for the ruling. I find it odd that no matter how bad a drive and where it ends up, if you #$*&$! someone off enough to take and keep your disc, you get a free rethrow. Oh well, thanks.

Chuck, I learned something new today. Has that rule always read that way? I never remember the option of reteeing; I always thought you placed it back where the person picked it up from.

Interestingly, reading that rule, it appears that if I throw a shank at the next teebox, a poor unfortunate golfer sees it coming, throws his arm out to deflect it actually deflects it, then I can rethrow. Seems like that rule needs to revisited, IMO.

Don't get me wrong because I understand the rule and all that its good because it helps speed up time. But for some reason lately the rule has kicked me in the butt probably because I agree with it. I have had 2 tournamnets now where we couldn't find my disc off the tee so when I re tee my 2nd shot lands right next to it. It has cost 2 strokes pretty much both times too. What I'm wondering is yes it has been said lost then you find it but why shouldn't you be able to play it

You only get the rethrow option if the deflection is intentional implying that a person deliberately made the choice in advance to deflect, grab or move your disc versus incidental contact in ducking out of the way and still getting hit. Unintentional deflections you get the lie where contact occurs. Just hope the person who's struck isn't standing in OB at the time.

Here's a good one. According to the interference rule, if you strike an animal, let's say it's a bird, you get the lie as close to contact as possible. If the 2m rule is in effect, do you get the penalty if you hit the bird above 2m? In Minnesota, you could easily strike a few mosquitos this time of year during flight. Good thing we don't use the 2m rule here...

how would you know if you hit a mosquito?

This thread, for most of its life, has been mistitled. It has not really addressed the core of the lost disc rule, but mainly discussed the use of provisionals.

As to your point about the overly punitive result of the new lost disc rule, I see both sides of the argument, but would probably agree that it is too punitive for most occasions. However, I still think there was a good bit of wisdom behind it which I personally would like to retain.

Chuck, if the guy is waving his hand to knock the disc away, he is certainly doing it intentionally, and if successful, I could rethrow.

Chuck, if the guy is waving his hand to knock the disc away, he is certainly doing it intentionally, and if successful, I could rethrow.



Nope. Defensive deflections are not considered intentional. Intentional is premeditated such as the person running out into the fairway with net to mess with your throw while it's flying, or the person making a deliberate decision to touch or move your disc at rest on the ground. If your disc lands on their tee, they could even move it so they could continue to tee off as long as they marked its location in some manner off the tee pad. That would still not be intentional interference because it was marked in some manner, similar to the OB flaggers at USDGC.

how would you know if you hit a mosquito?



Is this a setup? Skid marks of course, blood stains... :D

On this topic, we have asked and have gotten permission to use the short tee as a drop zone for lost discs on selected holes at Highbridge during the Mid-Nationals. Players will still be allowed to take a provisional on these holes from the long tee if preferred but the short tee will be a better chioce if their disc is actually lost. Taking the provisional negates their option to use the short tee as the drop zone then unless of course both their original throw and provisional end up lost. :eek:

Chuck, if the guy is waving his hand to knock the disc away, he is certainly doing it intentionally, and if successful, I could rethrow.



James, I think you could have the option to rethrow in the event a dog leaps in the air to grab your disc or if it runs off with it. That would be intentional.

The other thing to consider is if you claim that the player did intentionally deflect your shot even though it was defensive, that player is subject to a 2-throw penalty per 803.07C.

Yes, I now see the benefit to the view that defensive deflections are not intentional, since I should not be able to get a lucky rethrow, nor should the other player be penalized for acting naturally in an attempt to avoid injury.

However, my agreement has bounds. Imagine a scenario where the defensive act occurs right near OB and they knock it OB. This seems a little harsh for the thrower. If that happened on my card, I would probably argue that it was intentional for the purposes of allowing a rethrow, but that it was not intentional for the purposes of not penalizing the player who was just acting naturally. How's that for consistency? :p

do dogs actually have "intent"? sounds more like instinct to me. retee shooting 3.

Imagine a scenario where the defensive act occurs right near OB and they knock it OB.



The mark is where contact occurs, not where the deflected disc ends up. So, the person in your example would actually have to be standing in OB when contact occurs for you to end up OB. In that case, your disc was actually OB at the time and you should probably accept that as an unlucky strike. Although I would think it was likely in most cases if this ever happened that your disc would have ended up OB anyway.

retee shooting 3.



That would be my third choice. Retee shooting one based on intent if group agrees. Or, take the lie where the dog made contact (which may be better than reteeing) or take an unplayable and retee shooting 3.

Imagine a scenario where the defensive act occurs right near OB and they knock it OB.



The mark is where contact occurs, not where the deflected disc ends up. So, the person in your example would actually have to be standing in OB when contact occurs for you to end up OB. In that case, your disc was actually OB at the time and you should probably accept that as an unlucky strike. Although I would think it was likely in most cases if this ever happened that your disc would have ended up OB anyway.



saw an intentional disc stoppage at the memorial this year playing on dean tannock's card...the player was standing in ob and actually dove at the disc to stop it from rolling as it was heading towards being parked at the basket...
after checking the rule book we made the correct call to let him rethrow with no penalty and he proceeded to roll it again exactly the same way and park the hole for an eagle 3 :D

the rule is one that is written well for almost any situation that comes up

keith

The rule says that you can't take a provisional to save time on a disc whose status is in question unless the group allows it. You can't just choose to take a provisional without group support, in this one specific case. Are you arguing that the rule should be changed?



I'll answer that when you answer my questions on the OB Line Is Out thread.

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=552886&Main=530216#Post552886

Far enough?

do dogs actually have "intent"? sounds more like instinct to me. retee shooting 3.



dogs unquestionably have intent to catch the disc and run off with it (at least some do). just because our legal system is trapped in the 'science' of the past which mis-assumed a dog's brain is just a dumb animal brain -- modern science shows that a dog has a mammalian brain with emotions and intentions. calling it 'instinct' is just a high-fallutin' dodge. :p

otoh, we could argue whether Climo's dominance resulted from his intentions or his superior instincts... :eek:

The rule says that you can't take a provisional to save time on a disc whose status is in question unless the group allows it. You can't just choose to take a provisional without group support, in this one specific case. Are you arguing that the rule should be changed?



I'll answer that when you answer my questions on the OB Line Is Out thread.

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=552886&Main=530216#Post552886

Far enough?


I answered your questions on that thread. Just because you didn't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't.

And, by the way, my question on this thread was rhetorical. I was trying to get you to understand that you were asking for a rule change. I was not trying to find out if you already understood that, because it was already apparent that you didn't.

The rule says that you can't take a provisional to save time on a disc whose status is in question unless the group allows it. You can't just choose to take a provisional without group support, in this one specific case. Are you arguing that the rule should be changed?



I'll answer that when you answer my questions on the OB Line Is Out thread.

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=552886&Main=530216#Post552886

Far enough?


I answered your questions on that thread. Just because you didn't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't.

And, by the way, my question on this thread was rhetorical. I was trying to get you to understand that you were asking for a rule change. I was not trying to find out if you already understood that, because it was already apparent that you didn't.



You did not answer my questions, either prior to my asking them or since Paul. You are just avoiding admitting that you do not have a definition for inappropriate use of OB.

As for this rule, no, I see know need for a new rule; our current one is just fine as I have seen it work out in the real world.

You have one more strike... :D(baseball season...)

question: sorry if this has been asked. 1. player tees off and the disc goes OB in the water. Does said player re-tee from previous lie or play it where we last saw it go in? maybe I am confused on what exactly classifies a "lost disc" I have seen this being called both ways. a re-tee or approxiamte lie

if everyone in the group sees it go in the water then play from where you last saw it go in; I lost my disc in the marsh up in colorado and I had to retee because we never could find it. :(

but did you guys see it go in the marsh? if so than why would you not be able to tee from there? seems to me its the same concept

Perhaps the marsh wasn't OB. If it's casual, you apparently need to find it. Although I would allow a player casual relief if the group saw it go in.

BTW, at Mid-Nationals we got PDGA approval to use the short tee as the drop zone in the event a player loses their tee shot on 7 of the 72 holes at Highbridge. These are all holes with decent elevation drops and where the short tee ranges from 100-300 feet farther down the fairway.

so is water considered OB or lost disc?

It says right in the rules that a disc is not lost in OB (water) as long as the group agrees that's where the disc landed. If the disc wasn't observed going into OB and can't be found, even if it actually went OB, then the ruling is 'lost' unless your group is particularly generous in the assumption of where the disc went.

It says right in the rules that a disc is not lost in OB (water) as long as the group agrees that's where the disc landed. If the disc wasn't observed going into OB and can't be found, even if it actually went OB, then the ruling is 'lost' unless your group is particularly generous in the assumption of where the disc went.



Actually it says <font color="blue"> "In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area."</font>

There is no need to observe the disc going OB. Just a reasonable argument that it ended up there and why you can't find it there. If the card disagrees and you want an OB option other than a retee, play a provisional for the OB and
play the retee for the lost disc.

The rule (803.09.A) goes on to say <font color="blue">"In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B."</font> That almost implies that if OB is an option it is the default unless there is no evidence to support it.

<font color="white"> The "almost implies" means that this is a pretty much unsupportable interpretation of this rule and it really doesn't say this. It is just such a good example of baseless idea planting that I had to leave it in the post.</font>

sorry ..

example guy tees off we see the disc go into this big bush / tree. we are unable to find it,
a. does he re-tee or
b. play approximate lie of last seen with meter relief?

another example: guy throws his second shot and it goes in the water. we get there and are unable to see it in the muddy water.
a. does he re-tee or
b. 1M from last seen?

the key factor is whether the bush/muddy water/etc. is a designated OB area. if an OB area does come into play, the OB rule states that if there was reasonable evidence that's where it ended up then per option B2 you could take up to 1 meter from the OB line and play from there (group majority decision as to where disc was last IB before crossing into OB). or, as per option B1 (see OB rule posted below) the player could replay from their previous lie after adding a penalty stroke...

if there is no OB area in the vicinity then it would be considered lost. (unless a witness complicated things by saying he definitely saw aliens grab it and take off in a UFO -- then the interference rule might have to get invoked).

OB trumps lost disc just as missed mando trumps OB...


A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.03 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds. In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B.

B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or
(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or
(3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).

sorry ..

example guy tees off we see the disc go into this big bush / tree. we are unable to find it,
a. does he re-tee or
b. play approximate lie of last seen with meter relief?

<font color="blue">Lost disc - Previous lie with penalty.</font>

another example: guy throws his second shot and it goes in the water. we get there and are unable to see it in the muddy water.
a. does he re-tee or
b. 1M from last seen?

<font color="blue">OB: Options:
1) Previous lie with penalty
2) 1M from last in bounds
3) Drop zone if provided
TD can restrict the options if desired.</font>

<font color="brown">Third example:
Shot is thrown out over an OB area and is hyzering back toward inbounds when last seen. It can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?

Fourth example:
Shot is down the fairway of a dogleg left hole with OB on the left beyond the basket. The shot looks like it may have started to turn a little early, but can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?

Fifth example:
Tunnel through the trees, OB pond on the left for the last third of the fairway. Thick undergrowth for the first half of the hole. The OB pond is not visible from the tee area. A disc clears the tunnel and skips left out of view. The area on the left side of the fairway is mowed grass from the treeline to the pond. The disc can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?</font>

<font color="brown">Third example:
Shot is thrown out over an OB area and is hyzering back toward inbounds when last seen. It can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?

Fourth example:
Shot is down the fairway of a dogleg left hole with OB on the left beyond the basket. The shot looks like it may have started to turn a little early, but can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?

Fifth example:
Tunnel through the trees, OB pond on the left for the last third of the fairway. Thick undergrowth for the first half of the hole. The OB pond is not visible from the tee area. A disc clears the tunnel and skips left out of view. The area on the left side of the fairway is mowed grass from the treeline to the pond. The disc can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?</font>



<font color="blue">
Third example: OB
Fifth example: OB

Fourth example: you will have to clarify what you mean by 'turn.'
did you mean turn as in turnover? or turn left early as in RHBH fade? :confused: either way, i don't see reasonable evidence to argue that it went OB and am going to lean toward ruling it 'lost'... </font>

thanks so OB lost disc is just played as OB and lost disc is re-tee thanks

<font color="brown">Third example:
Shot is thrown out over an OB area and is hyzering back toward inbounds when last seen. It can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?

Fourth example:
Shot is down the fairway of a dogleg left hole with OB on the left beyond the basket. The shot looks like it may have started to turn a little early, but can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?

Fifth example:
Tunnel through the trees, OB pond on the left for the last third of the fairway. Thick undergrowth for the first half of the hole. The OB pond is not visible from the tee area. A disc clears the tunnel and skips left out of view. The area on the left side of the fairway is mowed grass from the treeline to the pond. The disc can't be found.
a: OB ?
b: lost ?</font>



<font color="blue">
Third example: OB
Fifth example: OB

Fourth example: you will have to clarify what you mean by 'turn.'
did you mean turn as in turnover? or turn left early as in RHBH fade? :confused: either way, i don't see reasonable evidence to argue that it went OB and am going to lean toward ruling it 'lost'... </font>



I meant turning left toward the pin and the OB.

Pretty much how I would call them as well.

What's funny is that even though i know the OB rule has always given me the option of where it was last IB or back to previous lie and throw again with penalty -- when i play it never crosses my mind to consider the stroke and distance option. i guess usually where it was last IB is the preferable lie, but not always (as when your put rolls 50 ft down a hill and into an OB pond LOL)

so you can return to your mini with a one stroke penalty?

so you can return to your mini with a one stroke penalty?



you generally have two options with OB (sometimes 3) see below:

803.09 Out-of-Bounds
B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or
(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or
(3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).

It says right in the rules that a disc is not lost in OB (water) as long as the group agrees that's where the disc landed. If the disc wasn't observed going into OB and can't be found, even if it actually went OB, then the ruling is 'lost' unless your group is particularly generous in the assumption of where the disc went.



Actually it says <font color="blue"> "In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area."</font>

There is no need to observe the disc going OB. Just a reasonable argument that it ended up there and why you can't find it there. If the card disagrees and you want an OB option other than a retee, play a provisional for the OB and
play the retee for the lost disc.

The rule (803.09.A) goes on to say <font color="blue">"In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B."</font> That almost implies that if OB is an option it is the default unless there is no evidence to support it.

<font color="white"> The "almost implies" means that this is a pretty much unsupportable interpretation of this rule and it really doesn't say this. It is just such a good example of baseless idea planting that I had to leave it in the post.</font>



Actually it says:

<font color="blue"> 803.09 Out-of-Bounds

A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.03 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds. In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B.

B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or (2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or
(3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).

C. The Rule of Verticality. The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane. Where a player�s lie is marked from a particular point within one meter of the out-of-bounds line pursuant to the rules, the one-meter relief may be taken from the particular point upward or downward along the vertical plane.

D. If the in-bounds status of a disc is uncertain, either a majority of the group or an official shall make the determination. If the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered out-of-bounds, and he or she shall proceed in accordance with 803.09 B counting all throws made prior to the determination of the in-bounds status of the original lie. If a player other than the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered in-bounds, and play for the thrower and the mover of the disc shall proceed under the rules of interference, 803.07 B and C. </font>



<font color="blue"> A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.03 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds. In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B. </font>

Although "reasonable evidence" is open to some interpretation "A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water." is not. In order for the disc to be considered out-of-bounds in any instance other than "water" (and it must be witnessed to have entered the water), the disc is considered lost.

Despite repeated attempts on this message board to conclude that hearsay or extrapolation is equal to evidence, it is not. Evidence must be physical or there must be a witness that affirms that the disc was last seen "physically" entering the OB area or water. Saying that it was heading that way, but no one actually saw it enter the OB area, so we are guessing that it did, does not constitute "reasonable evidence".

Our rules have been consistant in requiring actual physical evidence or witness. We don't for example say that a player foot faulted because their mini got kick and rolled away; only if another player, official or the director witness the player stepping on or infront of their marker is it a foot fault or stance violation.

Our rules are not a guessing game.

I think Mike mentioned that he often misses the opportunity to use the stroke and distance option; players should be careful to pay attention at the players meeting incase those options are restricted. At most events I go to that option is not permitted. Any time the TD says that you mark your lie where the disc was last in bounds precludes the use of the other options, similarly does drop zone options. The only time all three are available is if the TD says they are, or only states that the areas are OB and doesn't specifically restrict the options that may be used.

Any time the TD says that you mark your lie where the disc was last in bounds precludes the use of the other options, similarly does drop zone options.



Not so. This is simply a statement of one part of the rule and does not preclude the other options for handling OB if desired. I have never heard a TD say that playing from the original lie was disallowed or that playing from last point IB was the ONLY option. I have heard the TD say that the drop zone is the only option an a specific hole.

Despite repeated attempts on this message board to conclude that hearsay or extrapolation is equal to evidence, it is not. Evidence must be physical or there must be a witness that affirms that the disc was last seen "physically" entering the OB area or water. Saying that it was heading that way, but no one actually saw it enter the OB area, so we are guessing that it did, does not constitute "reasonable evidence".



The RC left the "reasonableness" interpretation to the group. I know that most I would play with would go on relatively thin evidence that a shot went OB rather than was lost since the player is still taking a 1-shot penalty. I believe groups will be just as reasonable as the RC was in writing the new lost disc rule.

Any time the TD says that you mark your lie where the disc was last in bounds precludes the use of the other options, similarly does drop zone options.


Not so. This is simply a statement of one part of the rule and does not preclude the other options for handling OB if desired. I have never heard a TD say that playing from the original lie was disallowed or that playing from last point IB was the ONLY option. I have heard the TD say that the drop zone is the only option an a specific hole.



Actually it does. The TD, by stating that only one option is available precludes the others. If they say nothing then all options are available.

Despite repeated attempts on this message board to conclude that hearsay or extrapolation is equal to evidence, it is not. Evidence must be physical or there must be a witness that affirms that the disc was last seen "physically" entering the OB area or water. Saying that it was heading that way, but no one actually saw it enter the OB area, so we are guessing that it did, does not constitute "reasonable evidence".



The RC left the "reasonableness" interpretation to the group. I know that most I would play with would go on relatively thin evidence that a shot went OB rather than was lost since the player is still taking a 1-shot penalty. I believe groups will be just as reasonable as the RC was in writing the new lost disc rule.



Did they? Where? I see no Q & A addressing this question. I will send one off immediately however:

If a player throws a disc over a hill and out of site of the group and all other players, officials and the director, and its last witnessed direction is towards an OB area, but no one actually sees the disc enter into the OB area, and the disc is subsequently declared lost, can the player or group, within the rules, say that there is reasonable evidence that the disc is OB and therefore usurp or undermine the Lost Disc Rule?

Is "reasonable evidence" equal to "judgment of the group without physical evidence or eye witness"?

Chuck,

This is a good instance of where stroke and distance for a lost disc is not in compliance with the OB rules. The old rule makes more since if we say that it is reasonable to assume it is OB without proof positive. Then by the old rule, the disc is spotted at last place seen. Now I don't have to assume it went OB and ask the group for a majority vote on it.

With the new rule, if a disc is thrown high and we could not find it on the ground, by your interpretation I could reasonably argue that since it is not on the ground it must be stuck in a tree. If 2M is in effect then I am taking a stroke but not distance penalty. By your interpretation of reasonable a whole slew of possible discussions could be started during the round. I follow and enforce the rules, but this one seems a little difficult to justify. I would say that the disc MUST be spotted going OB to preclude the enforcement of a distance penalty, however my preference would be to follow the old rule.

and for those that do not believe in the 2M rule, what is to keep me from insisting the disc is in the top of the last tree it was seen to hit. If it is reasonable to assume a disc went OB, regardless of the fact that it was not seen, then it is reasonable to argue it is in the top of a tree. Now I don't even have to take a penalty.



Despite repeated attempts on this message board to conclude that hearsay or extrapolation is equal to evidence, it is not. Evidence must be physical or there must be a witness that affirms that the disc was last seen "physically" entering the OB area or water. Saying that it was heading that way, but no one actually saw it enter the OB area, so we are guessing that it did, does not constitute "reasonable evidence".



The RC left the "reasonableness" interpretation to the group. I know that most I would play with would go on relatively thin evidence that a shot went OB rather than was lost since the player is still taking a 1-shot penalty. I believe groups will be just as reasonable as the RC was in writing the new lost disc rule.

Despite repeated attempts on this message board to conclude that hearsay or extrapolation is equal to evidence, it is not. Evidence must be physical or there must be a witness that affirms that the disc was last seen "physically" entering the OB area or water. Saying that it was heading that way, but no one actually saw it enter the OB area, so we are guessing that it did, does not constitute "reasonable evidence".



The RC left the "reasonableness" interpretation to the group. I know that most I would play with would go on relatively thin evidence that a shot went OB rather than was lost since the player is still taking a 1-shot penalty. I believe groups will be just as reasonable as the RC was in writing the new lost disc rule.



Did they? Where? I see no Q & A addressing this question. I will send one off immediately however:

If a player throws a disc over a hill and out of site of the group and all other players, officials and the director, and its last witnessed direction is towards an OB area, but no one actually sees the disc enter into the OB area, and the disc is subsequently declared lost, can the player or group, within the rules, say that there is reasonable evidence that the disc is OB and therefore usurp or undermine the Lost Disc Rule?

Is "reasonable evidence" equal to "judgment of the group without physical evidence or eye witness"?



This new rule was the reason the PFDS required a spotter on hole 15 at Lakeview (Moraine State Park) during the PFDO. Having added a large O.B. area along the lower right side of the fairway (which is blind from both tees), we felt it best to not leave scenarios such as this open for interpretation.

Chuck,

This is a good instance of where stroke and distance for a lost disc is not in compliance with the OB rules. The old rule makes more since if we say that it is reasonable to assume it is OB without proof positive. Then by the old rule, the disc is spotted at last place seen. Now I don't have to assume it went OB and ask the group for a majority vote on it.

With the new rule, if a disc is thrown high and we could not find it on the ground, by your interpretation I could reasonably argue that since it is not on the ground it must be stuck in a tree. If 2M is in effect then I am taking a stroke but not distance penalty. By your interpretation of reasonable a whole slew of possible discussions could be started during the round. I follow and enforce the rules, but this one seems a little difficult to justify. I would say that the disc MUST be spotted going OB to preclude the enforcement of a distance penalty, however my preference would be to follow the old rule.

and for those that do not believe in the 2M rule, what is to keep me from insisting the disc is in the top of the last tree it was seen to hit. If it is reasonable to assume a disc went OB, regardless of the fact that it was not seen, then it is reasonable to argue it is in the top of a tree. Now I don't even have to take a penalty.



Despite repeated attempts on this message board to conclude that hearsay or extrapolation is equal to evidence, it is not. Evidence must be physical or there must be a witness that affirms that the disc was last seen "physically" entering the OB area or water. Saying that it was heading that way, but no one actually saw it enter the OB area, so we are guessing that it did, does not constitute "reasonable evidence".



The RC left the "reasonableness" interpretation to the group. I know that most I would play with would go on relatively thin evidence that a shot went OB rather than was lost since the player is still taking a 1-shot penalty. I believe groups will be just as reasonable as the RC was in writing the new lost disc rule.





Classic message board stuff. Take something that is not applicable or pertinent and run with it.

There is no use of the words "reasonable evidence" in any other portion of the rule book. Not for determination of making or missing a mando, or above/below 2M, of any other situation where deductive reasoning may be brought up. It is only expressly stated for the determination of the OB status of a disc. Also, since it is expressly stated in the case of OB and not anywhere else, it should be expressly not applicable to those situations.

Reasonable evidence applies to the OB status of a disc only because it is in the OB rule. Direct verification is still required everywhere else.

Actually it does. The TD, by stating that only one option is available precludes the others. If they say nothing then all options are available.



Actually it doesn't if you read 803.09B(3). "These options may be limited by the TD as a special condition (804.01)." The TD cannot restrict the three options within the framework of the OB rule, but only by declaring that the OB location is a special condition and uses 804.01.

So if a TD says something like "OB is handled by the usual marking within one meter near the last point a disc is IB." All they are doing is reciting part of the normal OB marking rule and not restricting choices. To restrict, they would have to say that a specific or all OB areas are handled by the special conditions rule and specify one of those options.

and for those that do not believe in the 2M rule, what is to keep me from insisting the disc is in the top of the last tree it was seen to hit. If it is reasonable to assume a disc went OB, regardless of the fact that it was not seen, then it is reasonable to argue it is in the top of a tree. Now I don't even have to take a penalty.



Regardless of what we might "believe� or �think� of the 2MR; if you insist �the disc is in the top of the last tree it was seen to hit� I would require you to find and identify it as the disc in question. If you could not then the disc would by rule be declared lost and play resume under that rule.

A tree completely within a course parameter OB Area can behave similarly to water, in that it is reasonable to assume that a disc that is �seen� to enter that tree will not return to IB status; if it does and you find it IB. The same thing cannot be reasonably assumed of a tree completely within an OB area that is surrounded by IB area; because no one can know if the disc passed through the OB and returned to IB (unless they �saw� it do so. It is therefore necessary to locate and identify the disc. (Note: This is different than Chuck's undefined Casual Marsh Area where locating the disc is the only way to know if it is in the squishy wet part of the swamp or the part from which the player can choose to shoot from anyway.)

The 2MR has no bearing either way, since the 2MR is not an OB rule, and it is unrelated to the situation that exists between the OB and Lost Disc Rules.

Now, if a player insists on something in order to gain a competitive advantage in full knowledge that it is against the rules or untrue then that is called cheating and no rule can prevent such behavior. But in my experience that is very VERY rare and those guys tend to wear out their welcome in our sport very rapidly.

Chuck,

If the director, during the players meeting states that on hole 8 a disc that goes OB is to be played from the last place it was over IB, then that is declaring a special condition and only that option may be used on that hole.

If they say nothing, then all options are allowed; they need not announce all options are allowed. Announcements of Special Conditions are only necessary if you are restricting the default rule options.

You would be correct if they were just in general discussing PDGA rules of play; however, in my experience the part of the Players Meeting for discussing General PDGA Rules and Special Course Conditions are clearly deliniated.

Chuck,

If the director, during the players meeting states that on hole 8 a disc that goes OB is to be played from the last place it was over IB, then that is declaring a special condition and only that option may be used on that hole.

If they say nothing, then all options are allowed; they need not announce all options are allowed. Announcements of Special Conditions are only necessary if you are restricting the default rule options.

You would be correct if they were just in general discussing PDGA rules of play; however, in my experience the part of the Players Meeting for discussing General PDGA Rules and Special Course Conditions are clearly deliniated.



This can be really unclear.
If the TD said, "On hole 8, the marsh is out of bounds. Play it from the last place it was over IB." Then, yes, only that option can be used.
If on the other hand the TD said, "On hole 8, the marsh is out of bounds (play it from the last place it was over IB)." Then all options are still available.

If a TD is going to limit the options, then the TD needs to be really explicit that it is the only option.

I thought I undrstood it until I read the last posts.. thanks :confused:

Nick,

I was agreeing with you on the need to spot the disc to verify OB. I only brought up the 2M rule, becuase if, as Chuck has stated, it is reasonable to assume it went OB, then it is reasonable to assume it is up in the tree (Not OB). If it is okay because it is a stroke, then is it suddenly not okay because the the 2M rule is not in effect? I am not trying to fight with you, I am just using an example to show that a reasonable expectation does not seem appropriate. I would also say that since a lost disc penalty can be much more severe, than an OB penalty, then it should be enforced first.



and for those that do not believe in the 2M rule, what is to keep me from insisting the disc is in the top of the last tree it was seen to hit. If it is reasonable to assume a disc went OB, regardless of the fact that it was not seen, then it is reasonable to argue it is in the top of a tree. Now I don't even have to take a penalty.



Regardless of what we might "believe� or �think� of the 2MR; if you insist �the disc is in the top of the last tree it was seen to hit� I would require you to find and identify it as the disc in question. If you could not then the disc would by rule be declared lost and play resume under that rule.

A tree completely within a course parameter OB Area can behave similarly to water, in that it is reasonable to assume that a disc that is �seen� to enter that tree will not return to IB status; if it does and you find it IB. The same thing cannot be reasonably assumed of a tree completely within an OB area that is surrounded by IB area; because no one can know if the disc passed through the OB and returned to IB (unless they �saw� it do so. It is therefore necessary to locate and identify the disc. (Note: This is different than Chuck's undefined Casual Marsh Area where locating the disc is the only way to know if it is in the squishy wet part of the swamp or the part from which the player can choose to shoot from anyway.)

The 2MR has no bearing either way, since the 2MR is not an OB rule, and it is unrelated to the situation that exists between the OB and Lost Disc Rules.

Now, if a player insists on something in order to gain a competitive advantage in full knowledge that it is against the rules or untrue then that is called cheating and no rule can prevent such behavior. But in my experience that is very VERY rare and those guys tend to wear out their welcome in our sport very rapidly.

I thought if the disc cannot be put back in your bag (IE. in water or brush not able to be found) would make it a lost disc not an OB disc which would enforce re-tee from previous lie. but I guess if the group agrees it is OB than play 1M in .

Sorry about the confusion, but that is exactly my point. A TD could say the same thing and in one case mean what you must do and in the other case give an explanation of what is typically done (but isn't necessarily trying to exclude all the options).

And I didn't even realize it until this discussion that the TD can't limit options for taking the lie after going OB under the OB rule, but must specifically state that a particular OB area is being handled under the Special Conditions rule if they want to limit the option to say just reteeing.

Nick,

I was agreeing with you on the need to spot the disc to verify OB. I only brought up the 2M rule, becuase if, as Chuck has stated, it is reasonable to assume it went OB, then it is reasonable to assume it is up in the tree (Not OB). If it is okay because it is a stroke, then is it suddenly not okay because the the 2M rule is not in effect? I am not trying to fight with you, I am just using an example to show that a reasonable expectation does not seem appropriate. I would also say that since a lost disc penalty can be much more severe, than an OB penalty, then it should be enforced first.



Reasonable evidence is specifically listed in the OB rules, not anywhere else.
Reasonable evidence only applies to OB determinations, nothing else.

What is reasonable evidence seems to change from card to card.

The OB rule is the only explicit reference to reasonable evidence. However, there are at least two other situations where the application of reasonable evidence would be presumed to be applied:
1. Group watches disc fly high into cedar tree and it can't be found or seen. Some groups would not apply lost disc whether 2m was in effect or not based on their visual evidence.
2. Whether a disc made or missed a mando if no one was watching. The group would have to look where the disc ended up and make a judgment of some sort based on those who glimpsed the shot and the disc's final position.

Although "reasonable evidence" is open to some interpretation "A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water." is not. In order for the disc to be considered out-of-bounds in any instance other than "water" (and it must be witnessed to have entered the water), the disc is considered lost.

Despite repeated attempts on this message board to conclude that hearsay or extrapolation is equal to evidence, it is not. Evidence must be physical or there must be a witness that affirms that the disc was last seen "physically" entering the OB area or water. Saying that it was heading that way, but no one actually saw it enter the OB area, so we are guessing that it did, does not constitute "reasonable evidence".

Our rules are not a guessing game.




in general our rules are not a guessing game, but there are those times when educated guesses must be introduced to arrive at a ruling. that is why there is a "fairness" clarification and a statement in the rules that the benefit of the doubt goes to the player.

consider the following context:

Nick tees off over a hill to a pin below the hill that cannot be viewed from the tee. beyond the basket is an OB lake. the hole is well mowed and treeless everywhere within 1000 feet of the tee. Nick's drive appears to be a bit long but a plane flies overhead and noone hears a "sploosh" or other audible evidence that the disc found the drink.. the disc is nowhere in site when the group approaches the pin and searches the shoreline. there were no spotters or witnesses. what's the ruling -- OB or Lost Disc?

according to Nick's previous assertions -- he thinks the correct ruling is that the disc is lost. according to Gary and my prior scenarios upthread -- we'd probably concur the disc is OB and we'd use group majority decision to guestimate where the disc was last IB unless Nick wanted the re-tee with penalty option.

The OB rule is the only explicit reference to reasonable evidence. However, there are at least two other situations where the application of reasonable evidence would be presumed to be applied:
1. Group watches disc fly high into cedar tree and it can't be found or seen. Some groups would not apply lost disc whether 2m was in effect or not based on their visual evidence.
2. Whether a disc made or missed a mando if no one was watching. The group would have to look where the disc ended up and make a judgment of some sort based on those who glimpsed the shot and the disc's final position.



Scenario 1. I would argue that the suspended disc rule requires that the disc be found so that an accurate mark may be established. Inability to locate and positively identify the thrown disc should result in a lost disc ruling.

Scenario 2. Step 1, if no one was watching (including the thrower ?) then no accurate determination can be made regardless of where the disc ended up. If at least the thrower was watching, and no one else was, no one has a legitimate argument against what the thrower says.

I will admit that a blind or partially blind mando is one case where something similar to reasonable evidence may come into play, but I don't recall having played one where a determination couldn't be made from the throwing location.

Duke, come to the dark side......



The OB rule is the only explicit reference to reasonable evidence. However, there are at least two other situations where the application of reasonable evidence would be presumed to be applied:
1. Group watches disc fly high into cedar tree and it can't be found or seen. Some groups would not apply lost disc whether 2m was in effect or not based on their visual evidence.
2. Whether a disc made or missed a mando if no one was watching. The group would have to look where the disc ended up and make a judgment of some sort based on those who glimpsed the shot and the disc's final position.



Scenario 1. I would argue that the suspended disc rule requires that the disc be found so that an accurate mark may be established. Inability to locate and positively identify the thrown disc should result in a lost disc ruling.

Scenario 2. Step 1, if no one was watching (including the thrower ?) then no accurate determination can be made regardless of where the disc ended up. If at least the thrower was watching, and no one else was, no one has a legitimate argument against what the thrower says.

I will admit that a blind or partially blind mando is one case where something similar to reasonable evidence may come into play, but I don't recall having played one where a determination couldn't be made from the throwing location.

Gary, I agree with your read on Chuck's scenarios. A disc can not be ruled above the playing surface unless it is located and identified.

Chuck, at a Players Meeting during the discussion of the course all announcements are announcements of special conditions, so there is no need to announce, "Now we will discuss Special Conditions." It is already a given.

Please do not be purposefully confusing; it does not serve the true purpose of a Disc Golf Rules Zealot Padowan that you are... :DLOL!

The question is in to the RC and they are discussing it. I will share their answer when I get it and hopefully it will result in a Q & A. In brief though, the challenges always seem to arise with people trying to combine rules that should not, and there is no indication within the rules that they should be combined.

If a player witnesses the disc flying over or hitting well within an OB area where there is nearly zero chance of the disc returning to IB then I am fine with them playing their next lie according to the OB rule. But where there is no evidence other than "extrapolation" or "guessing" then we should avoid any situation where the group gets together and tries to "cut the guy or gal" a break (or a raw deal). The ruling should be uniform and not up to the perramblings and rationalizations of individuals or a group.

Similar to the dog leg mando, if no one sees "witnesses" that the disc missed the dog leg then there is no way, by rule, that an individual or group can try to deduce by logic or thought that it somehow missed the dogleg.

You either saw it miss or you did not. Guessing games are not a part of our rules.

Nick, perhaps this is how you wish to interpret the rules but the RC has not specified the amount of evidence required in my scenarios. I'm saying there will be groups that are not "wrong" from the RCs standpoint in their interpretation of what they saw and how they would rule in these cases. Would you like to wager how many groups would not call a disc lost if they all watch it disappear into a cedar tree and can't find it on the ground or see it in the tree? I believe even Harold on the RC would not call it lost considering his experience watching the linden trees on Winthrop 4, for example.

A disc that lands in a casual relief marsh does not have to be seen either (to be ruled casual versus lost) which is an extension of the OB "reasonable evidence" wording. Here's the response from Carlton on this a while back:

CK: All that's required to determine whether the disc has landed in the casual relief area is the agreement of the group or spotter? In other words, since a relief area may be hazardous, wet or protected, such as hornets, pricker field, marsh or bluebell field, it's not a requirement to retrieve or actually see the disc in the area, but just for the group to observe that the disc landed in the casual area?

Carlton: Yes. We agree that the �reasonable evidence� angle of the new OB rule should extend to cover this situation.

It's not too much to expect a similar response from the RC regarding "reasonable evidence" for the cedar tree scenario above which is about as identical to the casual relief scenario as possible.

Except that the casual area is more an extension of the OB rule than are the lost and suspended disc rules.

There is also a clear method provided for marking the next lie for a casual area without knowing the exact location of the previously thrown disc.


This is not the case for above 2M. The disc should either be found or lost. Generally, wouldn't a lie inside a cedar large enough to swallow a disc without a trace be worse than the previous lie.

Except that the casual area is more an extension of the OB rule than are the lost and suspended disc rules.

There is also a clear method provided for marking the next lie for a casual area without knowing the exact location of the previously thrown disc.


This is not the case for above 2M. The disc should either be found or lost. Generally, wouldn't a lie inside a cedar large enough to swallow a disc without a trace be worse than the previous lie.



Don't get me wrong, I am not argueing for 2M rule or against it. I was simply stating that if the OB rule can overide the Lost disc rule, then the scenerio of a disc, unseen, up in a tree could also overide the Lost Disc rule, regardless of whether the 2M rule applies or not. Why should it be okay to discard the distance penality because it is believed it went OB without being seen and similarly discard it if it is believed to be stuck in a tree? Regardless of 2M rule application or not.

As I recall the RC felt that the disc must be located in the specific "marsh" scenario you are bringing up; where there are playable areas mixed in among the wet spots; your scenario didn't describe one large casual area, rather many micro areas mixed with non-casual relief areas. In order to "know if you are in those "micro" areas you must locate your disc otherwise it is a lost disc.

I think that it is interesting that you are now agreeing with me that in order for the disc to be designated as having come to rest within an OB area it must be actually witnessed or "observed" entering that area; and not through blind extrapolation.

A casual relief area with special conditions that conflict with the lost disc rule are not permitted by the PDGA without special permission from the PDGA Competition Director, as you well know. Such areas are better labelled OB with a clear border.

Carlton's quote does not extend "reasonable evidence" to any other rule, it just says that it "should", and again, the key in his example is that someone actually "OBSERVED" the disc entering that area.

I'm not sure I get your point about the disc that enters a cedar tree; are you saying that by seeing a disc enter a tree and then not be able to find it that somehow it is not a lost disc? What is it then? How do you propose our rules provide for continuing play under such an interpretation? Where's the lie marked? Is there a penalty? Remember, above the playing surface is not an OB area. This idea seems to come up short.

Above the playing surface can only be ruled upon if the disc is located. There is no provision for "reasonable evidence" for either casual areas or above the playing surface; only for Out of Bounds. (At least not in our Official Rules or Q & As.)

The only possible ruling for a disc that disappears in a tree completely and well within IB and is not able to be located is lost disc.

The only way to avoid the lost disc ruling is either to find the disc in or around the tree or if that tree is completely within OB and there is no reasonable possibility that it could have returned to IB.

This discussion highlights my beef with the RC for many years because they still haven't specified what level of identification is required for some rules. There are decreasing levels of ID: (1) being able to physically touch the disc, (2) just see the disc, or (3) watch the disc go to a location. The suspended disc rule does not specify what level of proof of location is required. Same with casual relief. All we know is that level (1) is not required by either. That leaves levels (2) and (3) which are not specified nor explicitly excluded. Carlton and the RC allow level (3) for casual relief. What rule wording explicitly prevents level (3) from being sufficient for a suspended disc?

Here is the new Q & A: (Also listed in the "Rules" link.)

<font color="blue"> Rule Question: Lost or OB?

My shot was headed toward an OB lake when it went out of sight, and we never found it. Do I play it as lost or OB?

Response

Applicable Rules:

* 803.09.A Out-of-Bounds

The rule states that if there is "reasonable evidence" that the disc is OB, you play it as OB. Otherwise, it is lost, and you proceed by rule 803.11.

"Reasonable evidence" implies a high degree of confidence. For example, seeing a disc hit the water and observing the splash clearly passes the test. Seeing a disc head into some thick bushes at the edge of the lake does not result in "reasonable evidence" of OB, because you cannot be reasonably sure that it's not in the bushes somewhere. To declare it OB, you must be able to establish that it's not in an area where it could reasonably be lost.

For comparison, here is the explanation of "reasonable evidence" as defined by Decision 26-1/1 in the 2006-2007 USGA Book of Decisions on the Rules of Golf:

The term reasonable evidence in Rule 26-1 is purposely and necessarily broad so as to permit sensible judgments to be reached on the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular cases. As applied in this context, a player may not deem his ball lost in a water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard. The evidence must be preponderantly in favor of its being in the hazard. Otherwise, the ball must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1. Physical conditions in the area have a great deal to do with it. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that the ball is in the hazard would be more likely than if there was deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide reasonable evidence as splashing balls sometimes skip out of hazards. It would depend on all the circumstances.

Ultimately, it is of course a group decision. If the group is unable to settle the matter and an official is available, you can present the evidence to the official for a ruling.

In general, it is good practice in course design to avoid holes with blind OB, or with thickets bordering OB. Such holes in tournament play should have spotters.

The PDGA Rules Committee

Carlton Howard, Chair
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
Jim Garnett
Rick Voakes
</font>

In general, it is good practice in course design to avoid holes with blind OB, or with thickets bordering OB. Such holes in tournament play should have spotters.



...and perhaps including the option for TDs to specify drop zones for lost discs in a future rules rewrite to speed play on certain holes. We had permission to use that option at the Mid-Nats on seven holes. I didn't hear of any players losing discs on the holes where the short tee was the drop zone. However, a few were lost on some holes where the original tee was the required place to play from. Of course, not allowing a blanket rule where say the short tee was the drop zone on all holes would be easier for tournament players than trying to check the player program each time they play a hole to know what rule is in force.

Is there any leeway to provide drop-zones for lost disc situations? The course for the British Open has 3 holes where you potentially have to climb a long way back up to the tee if your disc is lost.
Obviously, in an ideal world everyone would throw a provisional if they saw their first drive go into the shule, but in reality, we all know that won't happen.

In general, it is good practice in course design to avoid holes with blind OB, or with thickets bordering OB. Such holes in tournament play should have spotters.



...and perhaps including the option for TDs to specify drop zones for lost discs in a future rules rewrite to speed play on certain holes. We had permission to use that option at the Mid-Nats on seven holes. I didn't hear of any players losing discs on the holes where the short tee was the drop zone. However, a few were lost on some holes where the original tee was the required place to play from. Of course, not allowing a blanket rule where say the short tee was the drop zone on all holes would be easier for tournament players than trying to check the player program each time they play a hole to know what rule is in force.



:eek:
Now that's service! You answered my question while I was still typing it! :D

What to do you do for the provisionals that also go into the schule ?

What to do you do for the provisionals that also go into the schule ?



Make 'em throw another 'til they get it right /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
On two of the 3, I'd be more than happy to stand there and empty my bag at 'em anyway, they're that type of hole :)

Very interesting, so now here is the scenerio, with the old Lost Disc Rule, we spend 3 minutes looking for the disc, then make a best guess as to where it was seen last and the player plays from that spot. With the new rule, we spend 3 minutes looking for the disc, then if the group believes there is reasonable evidence that it went OB then the player plays it from the spot it was believed to have been OB. If we do not have reasonable evidence, then the player goes back to the last spot and throws again. In the meantime, the gourp spends 3 minutes looking for the lost disc and another some odd amount of time discussing whether there is reasonable evidence or not. After this amount of time, the group spends more time making a best guess as to the location of OB and the player throws, OR the player goes back and re-tees or does their best to find the last spot he/she threw from and throws again.

Am I the only one that has a problem with this?


Here is the new Q & A: (Also listed in the "Rules" link.)

<font color="blue"> Rule Question: Lost or OB?

My shot was headed toward an OB lake when it went out of sight, and we never found it. Do I play it as lost or OB?

Response

Applicable Rules:

* 803.09.A Out-of-Bounds

The rule states that if there is "reasonable evidence" that the disc is OB, you play it as OB. Otherwise, it is lost, and you proceed by rule 803.11.

"Reasonable evidence" implies a high degree of confidence. For example, seeing a disc hit the water and observing the splash clearly passes the test. Seeing a disc head into some thick bushes at the edge of the lake does not result in "reasonable evidence" of OB, because you cannot be reasonably sure that it's not in the bushes somewhere. To declare it OB, you must be able to establish that it's not in an area where it could reasonably be lost.

</font>

If there is any doubt as to the OB status of the disc, the player should use a provisional. This will save a lot of time.

Only if he has a two digit IQ or is my opponent. Throwing a provisional on a possible O.B. is a sucker move. If you throw it, you have to take it if the original throw is o.b., and thus you have forfeited your option to play it where it was last in bounds. Throwing as provisional on a possible lost disc is a sucker move too. Go look for it. If it turns out to be lost, for your second throw you'll have spotters. And if someone on the rules committee is on one of the cards behind you, they get to sit and wait on a back up hole and think about the new rule. :D

Very interesting, so now here is the scenerio, with the old Lost Disc Rule, we spend 3 minutes looking for the disc, then make a best guess as to where it was seen last and the player plays from that spot. With the new rule, we spend 3 minutes looking for the disc, then if the group believes there is reasonable evidence that it went OB then the player plays it from the spot it was believed to have been OB. If we do not have reasonable evidence, then the player goes back to the last spot and throws again. In the meantime, the gourp spends 3 minutes looking for the lost disc and another some odd amount of time discussing whether there is reasonable evidence or not. After this amount of time, the group spends more time making a best guess as to the location of OB and the player throws, OR the player goes back and re-tees or does their best to find the last spot he/she threw from and throws again.

Am I the only one that has a problem with this?




I hope not. The old rule worked just fine. Occasionally, the spot would not be perfect, but mostly reason would prevail and an equitable spot would be found. In my thinking, I didn't care where the spot was. The player already was given a stroke penalty. As far as I was concerned, the spot could be right smack dab in the middle of the fairway or any place the thrower wanted no closer to the hole. Who cares? The only important thing is to treat all players alike. The solution to the "inaccurate spotting" of the lost disc, was, in my opinion, to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, the rule should be to give the thrower as lenient a spot as he wants no closer to the hole than was witnessed by the group. In other words, no one can assume the disc went further than was witnessed, in the case of a lost disc.

In the case of a disc being thrown into a thicket, high tree, Leland Pine, or whatever, if the disc cannot be located, it can't be spotted, and therefore, would be lost. If the same rule were to be applied, the player would take a stroke, take a lie in the "fairway" no closer to the hole than was witnessed by the group, and play on. Everyone should be happy, if everyone is treated equally. As long as the 2 meter rule is gone, there would be no problem. Any disc up in a Leland or other tree, and that disc cannot be specifically located, is lost. If it can be specifically located, it must be marked straight down into the Leland. No penalty, but good luck playing from there.

The present rule, is hopelessly flawed, in my opinion. The present rule requires an unrealistic amount of spotters just to be a poor rule. The present rule is extremely harsh, compared to the error, which might be none, other than Fall leaves, a blind hole, a rough terrain hole, or poor hole design.

I am going to suggest that we ahve opened ourselves up to MORE guess work than before. Now we need to also argue "reasonable evidence"

This past weekend, for instance, two throwers threw up in a tree. After 2 1/2 minutes we found the first one we were looking for. We then started looking for the second one and never found it. By the old rule, we would have picked the last seen spot, by the new rule we discussed whether seeing it go into the tree was reasonable evidence. I said it was and a majority agreed. While we discussed this, the group behind us was telling us to pick up the pace. Sorry guys, but while we can take only 3 minutes to find a lost disc, there is no set time for determining a group majority on "reasonable evidence". Later a marshall was asked and he said that he would have said it was lost. So I am a certified official and I ruled one way, based on this discussion, and here was another certified official that ruled differently. .With the old rule, it would have simply been a discussion of a couple of meters difference, with the new rule we get different rulings that can change the location by 100's of yards.


The present rule, is hopelessly flawed, in my opinion. The present rule requires an unrealistic amount of spotters just to be a poor rule. The present rule is extremely harsh, compared to the error, which might be none, other than Fall leaves, a blind hole, a rough terrain hole, or poor hole design.

I'm confused, where did reasonable evidence come into play in your scenario ? Either you find it in the tree, or you don't. If OB is a possibility, then the reasonable evidence question comes into play.

I am going to suggest that we have opened ourselves up to MORE guess work than before. Now we need to also argue "reasonable evidence" * * *

This past weekend, for instance, two throwers threw up in a tree. After 2 1/2 minutes we found the first one we were looking for. We then started looking for the second one and never found it. By the old rule, we would have picked the last seen spot, by the new rule we discussed whether seeing it go into the tree was reasonable evidence. I said it was and a majority agreed. While we discussed this, the group behind us was telling us to pick up the pace. Sorry guys, but while we can take only 3 minutes to find a lost disc, there is no set time for determining a group majority on "reasonable evidence".

The Michigan Supreme Court has come out with a lot of new guidelines on this. Most of the time now it is eight weeks in Michigan at the Circuit Court level. So if you are still discussing the status of that disc in September, you are probably taking too much time on that one. :D

Very interesting, so now here is the scenerio, with the old Lost Disc Rule, we spend 3 minutes looking for the disc, then make a best guess as to where it was seen last and the player plays from that spot. With the new rule, we spend 3 minutes looking for the disc, then if the group believes there is reasonable evidence that it went OB then the player plays it from the spot it was believed to have been OB. If we do not have reasonable evidence, then the player goes back to the last spot and throws again. In the meantime, the gourp spends 3 minutes looking for the lost disc and another some odd amount of time discussing whether there is reasonable evidence or not. After this amount of time, the group spends more time making a best guess as to the location of OB and the player throws, OR the player goes back and re-tees or does their best to find the last spot he/she threw from and throws again.

Am I the only one that has a problem with this?


Here is the new Q & A: (Also listed in the "Rules" link.)

<font color="blue"> Rule Question: Lost or OB?

My shot was headed toward an OB lake when it went out of sight, and we never found it. Do I play it as lost or OB?

Response

Applicable Rules:

* 803.09.A Out-of-Bounds

The rule states that if there is "reasonable evidence" that the disc is OB, you play it as OB. Otherwise, it is lost, and you proceed by rule 803.11.

"Reasonable evidence" implies a high degree of confidence. For example, seeing a disc hit the water and observing the splash clearly passes the test. Seeing a disc head into some thick bushes at the edge of the lake does not result in "reasonable evidence" of OB, because you cannot be reasonably sure that it's not in the bushes somewhere. To declare it OB, you must be able to establish that it's not in an area where it could reasonably be lost.

</font>





I don't know if you are the only one, but how much time was spent deliberating on a guess of where folks in the group "thought" they "might" have last "seen" (if they were watching at all) the disc last over in bounds?

Seems like a wash to me.

It also seems to encourage better hole design, td course set up, more spotters, and for players to actually watch each others throws. If a player says they didn't see the throw it is entirely within our rules to give them a courtesy violation. You don't have to look far for this in our rule book. It's the first one.

Very interesting, so now here is the scenerio, with the old Lost Disc Rule, we spend 3 minutes looking for the disc, then make a best guess as to where it was seen last and the player plays from that spot. With the new rule, we spend 3 minutes looking for the disc, then if the group believes there is reasonable evidence that it went OB then the player plays it from the spot it was believed to have been OB. If we do not have reasonable evidence, then the player goes back to the last spot and throws again. In the meantime, the gourp spends 3 minutes looking for the lost disc and another some odd amount of time discussing whether there is reasonable evidence or not. After this amount of time, the group spends more time making a best guess as to the location of OB and the player throws, OR the player goes back and re-tees or does their best to find the last spot he/she threw from and throws again.

Am I the only one that has a problem with this?




I hope not. The old rule worked just fine. Occasionally, the spot would not be perfect, but mostly reason would prevail and an equitable spot would be found. In my thinking, I didn't care where the spot was. The player already was given a stroke penalty. As far as I was concerned, the spot could be right smack dab in the middle of the fairway or any place the thrower wanted no closer to the hole. Who cares? The only important thing is to treat all players alike. The solution to the "inaccurate spotting" of the lost disc, was, in my opinion, to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, the rule should be to give the thrower as lenient a spot as he wants no closer to the hole than was witnessed by the group. In other words, no one can assume the disc went further than was witnessed, in the case of a lost disc.

In the case of a disc being thrown into a thicket, high tree, Leland Pine, or whatever, if the disc cannot be located, it can't be spotted, and therefore, would be lost. If the same rule were to be applied, the player would take a stroke, take a lie in the "fairway" no closer to the hole than was witnessed by the group, and play on. Everyone should be happy, if everyone is treated equally. As long as the 2 meter rule is gone, there would be no problem. Any disc up in a Leland or other tree, and that disc cannot be specifically located, is lost. If it can be specifically located, it must be marked straight down into the Leland. No penalty, but good luck playing from there.

The present rule, is hopelessly flawed, in my opinion. The present rule requires an unrealistic amount of spotters just to be a poor rule. The present rule is extremely harsh, compared to the error, which might be none, other than Fall leaves, a blind hole, a rough terrain hole, or poor hole design.



So perfection is a "group guessing game as to where they would like the lost disc throwers next lie to be", is that what you are saying Dave?

"I didn't really see it, but let's cut the guy a break and give him a lie right next to the basket, what do you say? Don't be a Richard! Benefit of the doubt and all that..." Is that it?

And yes, I for one AM SAYING that courses should be designed better and TDs provide better spotting where needed. The solution is not kinder or more wishy washy rules where players can allow there opinion of a player to shade their judgment, but for our game to have fewer lost discs and better designed courses, and rules that deal uniformly with "reason".

If you as a course designer have too many blind hazards...
If you as a TD don't provide appropriate spotters...
cause an unnatural amount of lost discs; then that is not our rules problem. It is a problem of your own creation.

What is our rules problem is if 2 players do the same exact thing and get 2 different rulings.

Only if he has a two digit IQ or is my opponent. Throwing a provisional on a possible O.B. is a sucker move. If you throw it, you have to take it if the original throw is o.b., and thus you have forfeited your option to play it where it was last in bounds. Throwing as provisional on a possible lost disc is a sucker move too. Go look for it. If it turns out to be lost, for your second throw you'll have spotters. And if someone on the rules committee is on one of the cards behind you, they get to sit and wait on a back up hole and think about the new rule. :D



Again, this example points to poor TD preparation and course design, not lack of consistant rule standards. There should be fewer need for spotters as courses are better designed and tournaments better staffed. Best of all, all players that still lose a disc will be treated exactly the same regardless of how many buddies they have in their group at the time.

According to earlier thread discussions.


I'm confused, where did reasonable evidence come into play in your scenario ? Either you find it in the tree, or you don't. If OB is a possibility, then the reasonable evidence question comes into play.

I'll have to go back and read through it again, I thought it had ended eith the disc needing to be located in the case of discs above the playing surface.

How else can a valid mark be taken ? I don't think the rules allow for an approximate mark in this case.

On the whole "The TD ought to provide spotters" thing, they came up with a good idea in Traverse City a couple of weeks ago. They have this long downhill hole where a perfectly thrown drive could reach the basket 650 feet away, but most attempts to do so hyzer out and go deep into the schule and down a steep incline and sometimes out of bounds if you can find it at all. This is a nightmare back up hole. No one wants to go down and spot for the group because it is a two minute walk down and a 15 minute walk up. And it would take about five spotters to cover the hole because it is just too steep to spot from one location.

So after the morning round produced a 45 minute back up wait on this hole with five or six groups waiting, the TD had an idea. It took about five years of tournaments there for this idea to perculate to the top, but it was still brilliant if not timely.

The TD mandated that the group on the hole should throw their drives, walk down to their drives, throw their second throws, and then turn around and spot for the drives coming from the group behind them. This worked great for everyone except the occasional straggler group.

Put it in your best practices file folder if you run ski resort/mountain disc golf tournaments.

I like it and can think of at least 4 holes where this would work well.

Again, I think Bruce's idea is a good one. One I plan to share with as many TDs as I can.

In situations where the disc can clearly be seen flying well out over and into OB area, where recovery is impractical if not impossible, I think the group should be able to rule that the disc is OB and proceed to play under the OB rule. (Hopefully the TD has provided a decent drop zone in such cases.)

The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that there are few rule infractions that so directly attack the basic underlying rule of golf which is to play the disc where it lies as does the lost disc. If the location of the disc is unknown, not OB, or in a tree, or anywhere that can be seen and identified, then all "context" of play has been lost.

I mean who knows what the persons score would have been if the disc had been found and play continued from the actual lie. This is why it is SO VERY IMPORTANT for designers to design courses well, course pros to maintain thier courses well, tournament directors to staff their events with spotters well, and for players to do the #1 courteous rule and watch each other to assist with finding thrown discs (and to make sure the rules are being followed).

This needs to be kept squarely in mind in this discussion; perhaps it seems overly punitive, but few other infractions have the same impact on fair play as a lost disc when you get right down to it.

The new rule is overly punitive. I think getting a stroke for a lost disc is punishment enough. Stroke AND going back is harsh!!! It is far too punitive for correcting the perceived "wrong" of a potential bad spot of the lie by a group. I believe 99 times out of 100 that a group will spot fairly and accurately. I don't think a good spot depends on how many of your "buddies" are in the group with you. To back this up, many times (when old rule was in effect) the group says here is your spot, and eventually the disc turns up within a couple of feet from the spot and usually right on the line of play.

Here is an example of why this new rule can be overly punitive:

Let's say I am playing on a well designed course, it is not a blind hole and everyone in my group is spotting. Oh wait, that would be the tourney I played last Saturday, so this is a true example. Anyway, my disc appears to skip and hit a bush down the fairway. All players in my group saw where it "landed". We get down there and cannot find the disc. I finally say: "Please keep looking for my disc while I walk back and re-tee." It is at that time I find the disc, exactly where we all saw it. It was just difficult to see in the bush on the fairway but it was there. I didn't throw a bad shot, it wasn't a poorly designed hole, there was no need for spotters as a lost disc was highly unlikely, and everyone in my group was watching. I nearly had to take an extra stroke AND go all the way back to the tee instead of playing down the fairway. This seems overly punitive for not being able to locate a disc when we all saw and knew exactly where it went. I think getting a stroke for a lost disc is punishment enough. I got my three because I found the disc. I would have taken a four under the old rules and at least a five under the new rules.

Stroke AND going back to previous lie is too harsh!!! It unfairly punishes a player when a disc goes into a pile of leaves, around a blind corner, down a very steep fairway or into tall grass or rough. All these conditions cannot be done away with. There are over 2000 courses currently in the ground, and these conditions are prevalent on many.

It is not a reasonable solution to the new lost disc rule to say course should be redesigned as that is not an option on many courses either because of limited land use or funding to relocate baskets and tees. This reasoning only works for newer courses, and again, these are not usually placed in the worlds most manicured park areas. Yeah, let's never build a course in a ski area so all our friends who live in the mountains can't play golf. Let's never build a course in the prairies or forests so the locals in these areas can't play golf unless the park will cut the grass every week or destroy all the undervegetation in the forest.

It is not reasonable to lessen the amount of lost discs by saying courses should be better maintained as sometimes courses are built in under-utilized areas of parks, or there is tall grass or rough areas that are protected. Let's face it there is little funding and little desire to upkeep disc golf courses like ball golf courses. It is not feasible to remove all the dead leaves in the fall on a heavily wooded course.

It is not fair nor reasonable to ask that TD's provide more spotters. I am thinking your average C-Tier in the average town is not going to have any extra volunteers let alone 10 extra volunteers just to spot on the local wooded course with a couple of blind holes, fallen leaves and rough off the fairways.

The cure to lost discs is not as simple as saying everyone in the group needs to pay better attention as many, many times in the case of a lost disc, the group is in complete agreement where they saw it last. Note the disc that goes into a cedar tree to never be seen again.

Is the new rule really better and the old rule unfair somehow because some players were getting better spots than others because their buddies were on the card? It seems against the grain of our sport to say the benefit of the doubt is a bad thing because on a few occassions it was inaccurate.

Please tell me what I can do for the tournament I will be running at a ski resort in August. I can not provide any spotters on any holes. There is severe elevation changes and there are pine needles covering the ground and rough areas we are not allowed to cut down. It will destroy the speed of play when players have to hike back up the mountain to play a lost disc. I like the idea of the group ahead waiting to spot, but when there isn't a group on every hole there will be several groups that don't have that option. Do I have to specifically petition the PDGA to allow drop zones on holes with potential problems? Even this would still not cover my scenario above where I nearly lost a disc on a wide open course where everyone was watching.

I just don't see the rule change as being beneficial and it certainly does not seem "fairer" than the old rule. I am distressed that the rules committee is letting this rule stand for another year. I wish I knew what I could do to change it.

This does seem to be a pretty unpopular new rule. While generally it is more punitive than the old version, there are times when it is far kinder. If you try to go over the top of a tightly wooded, long hole and are last seen over the middle of a dense forest, re-tee is sometimes far more desirable than where last seen.

the benefits of the new rule too are that under the old rule two groups ruling on an identical flight path of a lost disc might give two TOTALLY different spots to the thrower resulting in a two stroke difference that in turn could decide the outcome of an event...

i think the answer needs to be that we come up with a solution that addresses the subjectivity of 'where last seen' and also does away with the time-consuming punitive nature of stroke and distance.

anyone have a proposed re-writing of the Lost Disc rule that we can present to our RC?

The problem is that the new rule is harsh for good shots that go wrong, and soft for bad shots that stay bad.

If you have a shot that is down the fairway for 90% of it's flight, but skips into the schule at the end and can't be located, the rule is harsh.

If you throw over the top of the thickest jungle you can find to create a shortcut to the basket and can't be found, it's a blessing.

It seems that we are promoting the wrong shots. Go ahead and try to throw over that thick stuff, either you get over it, or it will probably be lost and you play the next shot from where you are now.

The problem is that the new rule is harsh for good shots that go wrong, and soft for bad shots that stay bad.

If you have a shot that is down the fairway for 90% of it's flight, but skips into the schule at the end and can't be located, the rule is harsh.

If you throw over the top of the thickest jungle you can find to create a shortcut to the basket and can't be found, it's a blessing.

It seems that we are promoting the wrong shots. Go ahead and try to throw over that thick stuff, either you get over it, or it will probably be lost and you play the next shot from where you are now.



Gary, i agree -- you've done a good job of summarizing the problems. Instead of simply dropping the evil we now know and running back into the arms of the evil we used to know (subjective group call on 'where last seen' that varied greatly depending on who was on your card) -- can you think of anyway to write a new Lost Disc rule that isn't so punitive to good shots and friendly to bad ones?

something like: 10 additional meters away from the pin on the LOP on the fairway closest to where last seen with penalty?

(group would establish where last seen, and then move from there laterally to the fairway, and then from there 10m back from the target -- that way if you were past the pin you'd still have to move away from the pin).

I've been half and half on the new lost disc rule. It is harsh and time consuming. Sometimes it may even reward some really stupid throws while punishing some good throws gone bad. On the other hand, I was raised on golf, and it is golf. Completely unlike the new 2-meter rule, this is golf.

If we were going to call our game "target disc" we could make up any rules at all. Since we call it disc golf, it makes sense to play by golf rules.
---------------

What do you all think about this: suppose I throw my old cheap plastic disc half way to hell down an in bounds ravine, or small canyon. If I find it there I'm kind of screwed because I can't throw overhand shots so good. Under the old lost disc rule, we last saw it somewhere over the ravine. Under the new rule I can take a penalty and get a much more favorable lie by re-teeing. Is it cheating to not look very hard? Could I say, "Don't anyone risk your necks going down that ravine. If we can't see it from up here I'll just call it lost," and avoid the greater unpleasantness of maybe finding it where it landed? Or is that cheating?

When this question popped up in my mind I was genuinely curious but now I realize it is kind of a trick question.

At the New Mexico State Championships held at the Sipapu Ski Resort, Hole 18 is similar to what Bruce describes. For several years they have been using the technique of having the first group throw, walk down and throw their second shots, then help spot for the group behind. It's a beautiful hole, 586 feet all downhill, with a fairway that's around 70 to 90 feet wide. Even with a volunteer spotter, hitting those really tall trees can result in some weird bounces and rolls, making it difficult to find everyone's discs. The practice of having the group ahead help spot for the group behind works very well in these instances.

I've been half and half on the new lost disc rule. It is harsh and time consuming. Sometimes it may even reward some really stupid throws while punishing some good throws gone bad. On the other hand, I was raised on golf, and it is golf. Completely unlike the new 2-meter rule, this is golf.

If we were going to call our game "target disc" we could make up any rules at all. Since we call it disc golf, it makes sense to play by golf rules.
---------------



This logic breaks down as golf balls are lost off the fairway, which is manicured. Our discs can be lost on our fairways which are not manicured, and sometimes horrible. This is not the player's fault. He should not be penalized for nothing.

I like Dave's idea of getting a friendly lie in the fairway with penalty.

You could say where last over the fairway, so risk can be calculated based on the line the player chooses to throw. If you go out over the trees early, your spot is near the tee box. If you follow the fairway and skip out at the end of your shot, you get a lie down the fairway.

Dave points a major problem with this. We do not have manicured fairways, and it is often hard to determine what is and isn't part of the fairway.

I like Dave's idea of getting a friendly lie in the fairway with penalty.

You could say where last over the fairway, so risk can be calculated based on the line the player chooses to throw. If you go out over the trees early, your spot is near the tee box. If you follow the fairway and skip out at the end of your shot, you get a lie down the fairway.

Dave points a major problem with this. We do not have manicured fairways, and it is often hard to determine what is and isn't part of the fairway.



This solution may also break down with huge misses than go down a hill or into deep shule. The thrower would have the option to rethrow with penalty. But, maybe a lie in the fairway would be a little too good. A "favorable" lie near the place last seen and no closer to the hole might work.

I cannot believe that I am disagreeing with Dave

Sunday last round hole 18 Zebulon NC. I threw a tee shot with a little extra grip directly into the shule but into the only hole therein.

needless to say the disc was lost and I had to return to the tee and fire again. the disc I lost was an irreplaceable second run CE TL. the re-tee was a decent drive but slightly more stable than the first and went OB. Double Circle 6.

I agree with the rule. the last actual known place that the disc was the tee. losing my favorite driver for left to right shots cost me a couple more strokes down the stretch and I still agree with the rule.

fact of the matter is imo until we grow into a situation more along the lines of the usga and the pga (i.e. tee times, marshalls following every group, duplicate score cards, etc.)
then this is the best solution.

sincerely

one crazy disc golfer

"Please keep looking for my disc while I walk back and re-tee."



It was my understanding that you only have 3 minutes to look for a lost disc not matter if you find it in the fourth or fifth minute, it's still lost after 3. Is that right? Are folks allowed to keep looking for the disc after the three minutes is up and you are walking back, only to find it at say minute 4 or 5 and you have to walk back down to where the disc was found? I thought when you start looking the clock starts and someone calls 3 mins. and you take your stroke and loose the distance.

What do you all think about this: suppose I throw my old cheap plastic disc half way to hell down an in bounds ravine, or small canyon. If I find it there I'm kind of screwed because I can't throw overhand shots so good. Under the old lost disc rule, we last saw it somewhere over the ravine. Under the new rule I can take a penalty and get a much more favorable lie by re-teeing. Is it cheating to not look very hard? Could I say, "Don't anyone risk your necks going down that ravine. If we can't see it from up here I'll just call it lost," and avoid the greater unpleasantness of maybe finding it where it landed? Or is that cheating?

When this question popped up in my mind I was genuinely curious but now I realize it is kind of a trick question.



Actually, even without the new lost disc rule, you could still choose to re-tee if you wanted to, even if you find your disc. Under rule 803.06 Unplayable Lie "A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: .......or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or group majority ... The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score."
So if you wanted to keep your old cheap plastic AND retee, you certainly could. :D
And under the old lost disc rule, you could still choose to play from your previous lie if you wanted, just like with OB.

And under the old lost disc rule, you could still choose to play from your previous lie if you wanted, just like with OB


Which old lost disc rule was that ?

Old Rule 803.10.B Lost Disc.
A player whose disc is declared lost, shall receive one penalty throw. The approximate lie for the player's next shot shall be marked in-bounds nearest the the spot where the disc was last seen, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official.

The old unsafe lie rule did not have a provision to go back to the previous lie, though the 2 stroke, anywhere no closer to the target clause could probably be used to do that.

We have also discussed similar situations involving relocating a lie where a penalty is involved using the unplayable lie rule and have come to the conclusion that the penalty must be applied before a lie can be established.

A lie can not be declared unplayable until it exists, so you must first take the lost disc penalty, and then apply the unplayable lie rule with an additional penalty.

"Please keep looking for my disc while I walk back and re-tee."



It was my understanding that you only have 3 minutes to look for a lost disc not matter if you find it in the fourth or fifth minute, it's still lost after 3. Is that right? Are folks allowed to keep looking for the disc after the three minutes is up and you are walking back, only to find it at say minute 4 or 5 and you have to walk back down to where the disc was found? I thought when you start looking the clock starts and someone calls 3 mins. and you take your stroke and loose the distance.



I thought the three minutes was to move play along so players do not spend ten minutes looking for a disc. I am sure we have all been in situations where searching went on for more than three minutes. It is some kind of Murphy's Law that as soon as you give up on finding the lost disc, it magically appears.

I thought (and perhaps wrongly) that if the disc was found prior to the player throwing again, the disc is not lost and the player can throw from the proper lie. Once you have thrown after declaring a disc lost, it doesn't matter if they locate the disc you still get stroke and distance (but at least you get your disc back).

Under the old rules, everyone would stop moving (ie looking for the disc) while the player set up for the throw. Under the new rule it takes a couple of minutes (maybe lots more) to walk back to the tee/previous lie. The group can easily spend that time looking for the disc.

Again, I thought if the disc was found before the player took the next throw, they would not have to take the lost disc penalty.

Come on Rules guys - what is the proper ruling? Once you call the three minutes, do you still have to take your stroke and distance, even if the disc is found before you take your next throw?

From 803.11 ...The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three minute time limit.

Finding the disc after the time limit expires just provides the player with the disc but no change in where the next shot is thrown from and the penalty still applies. There's a Q&A on this also.

Once upon a time it made a difference in where the next shot was taken from, but the penalty was still applied after the expiration of the three minutes even if the disc was found before the player threw.

Thanks for that quick response. I was just re-reading the rule myself and noted "declared lost immediately upon expiration".

Wow, so the fact I found my disc after I said I was going back to the tee would mean I misplayed the hole this weekend? No one actually said three minutes is starting or three minutes is up. It just seemed like three minutes had elapsed.

How would my "misplay" of the hole get handled now that the event is over and scores have been posted? This doesn't affect the outcome as I won be more than two strokes.

Lets say I only won by one stroke, would results be changed? Would I have to return my winnings? Please elaborate.


Did I say I hate this rule? :mad:

Except for intentional cheating or a mistake on the part of the TD, I would let any results stand as is once the tournament has completed.

But, in the case you described for your lost disc, there were a few steps in 803.11 that were not followed. No one noted when the timing of the 3 minutes began and therefore no one could note when it ended. Three minutes feels like a long time when you are wandering around in circles looking at the ground (or up into the trees). You probably found the disc 2 minutes and 59 seconds after you started. ;)

During tournament play, I keep the timer on my watch set to 3 minutes. If a player cannot find the disc, I wait for all players to begin looking, show my watch to one of them and declare aloud that the 3 minutes is beginning.

There must be an official start of the three minutes before there can be an official end unless it was come to by consensus (usually after not finding the disc).

Whenever a group is looking for a disc someone should start a three minute count. If no one starts a clock, and the disc is found before the player gives up and everyone agrees that it has been three minutes, then there is no penalty.

If anyone on the card had agreed that the three minutes were over when you started back to re-tee, they should have given you the penalty and made you re-tee. Since no one insisted that you re-tee, it seems that they did not think the three minutes had expired.

Lets say I only won by one stroke, would results be changed? Would I have to return my winnings? Please elaborate.



I've seen this come up twice this year already when players discovered a scoring error or penalty they should have had sometime after the event was over. However, once the awards are given out and the TD declares the event over, no changes are officially made.

804.03 G. After the scorecard is turned in, the total score as recorded shall stand with no appeal, except for the following circumstances:
(1) Penalty throws may be assessed at whatever time the infraction is discovered <font color="red"> until the director declares the tournament officially over or all awards have been distributed. </font>

Thanks for all the information. Sorry for the thread drift.



Now back to the lame rewrite of the lost disc rule.

A lie can not be declared unplayable until it exists, so you must first take the lost disc penalty, and then apply the unplayable lie rule with an additional penalty.



True, but if there is no 2 meter rule, and no possible OB, the only decision is where on the fairway is "no closer". I think you should be allowed to rethrow any time you want with the previous throw counted plus a penalty throw. I think it would help speed of play. I know it would for me. Especially in areas where shots go bad, into bad areas, that I don't want to go in.

True, but if there is no 2 meter rule, and no possible OB, the only decision is where on the fairway is "no closer". I think you should be allowed to rethrow any time you want with the previous throw counted plus a penalty throw. I think it would help speed of play. I know it would for me. Especially in areas where shots go bad, into bad areas, that I don't want to go in.



That already is an option:

803.6 Unplayable Lie
A. A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.

WARNING! THREAD DRIFT IMMENIENT!!!!!





That already is an option:

803.6 Unplayable Lie
A. A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.



I have always wondered this, is the penality ONLY in effect if you go beyond 5 meters? From the placement in the rule that is the way it appears.

WARNING! THREAD DRIFT IMMENIENT!!!!!





That already is an option:

803.6 Unplayable Lie
A. A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable. <font color="blue">The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official.</font> The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.



I have always wondered this, is the penality ONLY in effect if you go beyond 5 meters? From the placement in the rule that is the way it appears.



Doesn't look like it. Both relocation options are part of the same sentence, the penalty is described in the next sentence, and should apply to both options of the previous sentence.

Again, this is not an option to avoid the lost disc penalty. You have to first locate your lie (and prove there is no lost disc penalty involved) before you can declare it unplayable.

Did you not see the thread drift warning? :p


Again, this is not an option to avoid the lost disc penalty. You have to first locate your lie (and prove there is no lost disc penalty involved) before you can declare it unplayable.

I thought that was for the 5m with no penalty idea you tossed out. :cool:

A lie can not be declared unplayable until it exists, so you must first take the lost disc penalty, and then apply the unplayable lie rule with an additional penalty.



True, but if there is no 2 meter rule, and no possible OB, the only decision is where on the fairway is "no closer". I think you should be allowed to rethrow any time you want with the previous throw counted plus a penalty throw. I think it would help speed of play. I know it would for me. Especially in areas where shots go bad, into bad areas, that I don't want to go in.



Not a rule problem. A course design problem. A tournament director problem. A spotting problem. Possibly a courtesy problem. The rule is clear and uniform.

Speed of play does not trump fairness, consistancy and courtesy. Well, at least it's not supposed to, though it often does.

I hate the speed of play rule. I have never played a competitived round where it is used according to the rules and intention.

Not a rule problem. A course design problem. A tournament director problem. A spotting problem. Possibly a courtesy problem. The rule is clear and uniform.

Speed of play does not trump fairness, consistancy and courtesy. Well, at least it's not supposed to, though it often does.




I agree with everything you have said. That is exactly why we need to change the rule back or change to something else. As you said: It is a design problem, a TD problem, a spotting problem, and possible courtesy problem. Absolutely. It is very problematic. It is causing problems, not solving them.

And the rule is clear and uniform. Absolutely. But, it is not only problematic, it is extremely unfair in its applicatiion. In an effort to be fair and consistent in the application of this rule, it became very unfair and unjust. Losing a disc due to an errant shot is much different, in my mind, to losing a disc due to circumstances beyond the player's control. When a player throws an otherwise perfect shot, that everyone sees and applauds, then can't find for whatever reason, the penalty is unfair and unreasonable. When a player launches one into an abyss, the rule is lenient, as it might take 10 shots to get back to the fairway. (Personally, I care less about the leniency as usually that goes to non cashing players anyway).

In an effort to correct a marking "problem", we have created several more. Saying that this rule will teach those TDs, course designers, spotters and Autumn leaves to behave, is unrealistic at best. Very bad rule, potentially punishing good play and rewarding bad.

Not to thread drift. This is in the same area of discussion.

Since were on lost disc rule.

If say I drive off the tee say on a 350' hole and I skip out pin high from inbounds to out of bounds right of the hole. Do I have to retee or bring it in where it skipped out and play from there with OB stroke?

Someone told me the opposite so I want to clear that up.

Another question:

New OB rule: So are you saying if now my disc where it lies is just touching any part of the OB line it is OB correct?


Josh

Not to thread drift. This is in the same area of discussion.

Since were on lost disc rule.

If say I drive off the tee say on a 350' hole and I skip out pin high from inbounds to out of bounds right of the hole. Do I have to retee or bring it in where it skipped out and play from there with OB stroke?

Someone told me the opposite so I want to clear that up.




You can still play an OB disc from the last place it was inbounds. 803.09.B.2



Another question:

New OB rule: So are you saying if now my disc where it lies is just touching any part of the OB line it is OB correct?




A disc still needs to be completely surrounded by OB to be OB (803.09.A). If you have a wide OB line (which some say cannot have width by def) it may affect things. But the usual place where this matters is in determining the last place inbounds. A disc coming from OB and hitting the OB line will no longer be considered having been inbounds at the point where it hit the line.

If say I drive off the tee say on a 350' hole and I skip out pin high from inbounds to out of bounds right of the hole. Do I have to retee or bring it in where it skipped out and play from there with OB stroke?

Someone told me the opposite so I want to clear that up.



You have the choice of re-teeing or marking from where it last went out of bounds. And actually, if there is a designated drop zone you may have to go there.


New OB rule: So are you saying if now my disc where it lies is just touching any part of the OB line it is OB correct?



Inccorrect. If any part of your disc is on the fair side of the OB line you are considered in bounds.

Josh,

First, the disc that skipped OB is taken where it went OB. That has not changed, the lost disc discussion has been about any leeway if it was lost when it went OB. For instance if you threw over a hill and there is water there, if it is reasonable to assume it went OB then you take it where the group agrees it went OB, if there is no reasonable evidence, then you must assume it is a lost disc and per the new rule you must re-throw.

The disc touching OB is NOT OB, unless it is completely surrounded by OB. What has changed is really an old argument about if the disc was OB but leaning against a fence designated OB, then by the old OB rule it could be argued that it was touching inbounds and therefore was inbounds. That cannot be argued now because the OB line is now also OB. By rule if ANY part of your disc is inbounds it is inbounds, pretty much the same as always.


Not to thread drift. This is in the same area of discussion.

Since were on lost disc rule.

If say I drive off the tee say on a 350' hole and I skip out pin high from inbounds to out of bounds right of the hole. Do I have to retee or bring it in where it skipped out and play from there with OB stroke?

Someone told me the opposite so I want to clear that up.

Another question:

New OB rule: So are you saying if now my disc where it lies is just touching any part of the OB line it is OB correct?


Josh

Still confused.

Say my disc has 1 inch of the disc inbounds on the grass and the rest of the disc is on the road which is OB. Is that OB or Not?

Assuming the grass is IB then the disc is IB if any part of it is beyond the cement and on or over the grass. However, a few long blades of grass that are laying over the cement and under a disc that's completely surrounded by OB cement do not make the disc IB. This is one of the more abused grass/cement IB/OB issues and apparently cost me a place in the semis at Worlds last year because the player got the IB call from the group in an earlier round.

Your disc must be clearly and completely surrounded by OB to be considered OB. Grass is a poor example because grass often leans over OB territory.

If the hard paved surface is OB, and part of your disc is directly over the ground, you are inbounds. Any dirt, leaves, or grass that has grown or accumulated on top of the pavement is also OB.

IN BOUNDS! the entire disc must be completely surrounded by OB, which the line is now OB.
Touching the line does not mean OB.
Here is a picture to help:
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2148/untitled0gx.jpg

Assuming the grass is IB then the disc is IB if any part of it is beyond the cement and on or over the grass. However, a few long blades of grass that are laying over the cement and under a disc that's completely surrounded by OB cement do not make the disc IB. This is one of the more abused grass/cement IB/OB issues and apparently cost me a place in the semis at Worlds last year because the player got the IB call from the group in an earlier round.



Yeah, that's a BS call. It's not the actual grass that's IB. The grass just happens to be in the IB area. It's the line formed by where the grass and cement meet that delineates the OB area.

And now, back to the lost disc rule......

Just this past weekend I was playing in a tournament and my disc was lieing on a cement curb. The curb was large enough that it could hold the disc. The grass and dirt went over the curb line so I had to poke in the dirt until I found the curb line and verify the disc overlapped that line. It was close enough that until I did that it was hard to tell. So even though it appeared to be on dirt and grass, it was the curb line that marked the OB and that is what I had to check against.


Still confused.

Say my disc has 1 inch of the disc inbounds on the grass and the rest of the disc is on the road which is OB. Is that OB or Not?

I was wondering if a disc is thrown and was obviously heading into o.b. territory, does the disc still need to be recovered to avoid the lost disc rule? Say a player throws out into a pond or lake, they most likely have a lost disc, but most would probably play it as o.b. and take their meter of releif where the disc was last inbounds.

IN BOUNDS! the entire disc must be completely surrounded by OB, which the line is now OB.
Touching the line does not mean OB.
Here is a picture to help:
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2148/untitled0gx.jpg



that is excellent. imo, our membership would benefit a great deal if the PDGA rules book contained a few diagrams like this next to the text defining the rule(s). Two rules that immediately cry out for this are the OB rule and the foot fault rule...

a great start would be to put diagrams in the online version of the PDGA Rules here... sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words (i know i have had a lot of conversations trying to clear up false ideas some hold about the new OB ruling with regard to the line itself being out). maybe i'll print the above diagram out and carry it with me to flash at the misinformed :D

Not a rule problem. A course design problem. A tournament director problem. A spotting problem. Possibly a courtesy problem. The rule is clear and uniform.

Speed of play does not trump fairness, consistancy and courtesy. Well, at least it's not supposed to, though it often does.




I agree with everything you have said. That is exactly why we need to change the rule back or change to something else. As you said: It is a design problem, a TD problem, a spotting problem, and possible courtesy problem. Absolutely. It is very problematic. It is causing problems, not solving them.

And the rule is clear and uniform. Absolutely. But, it is not only problematic, it is extremely unfair in its applicatiion. In an effort to be fair and consistent in the application of this rule, it became very unfair and unjust. Losing a disc due to an errant shot is much different, in my mind, to losing a disc due to circumstances beyond the player's control. When a player throws an otherwise perfect shot, that everyone sees and applauds, then can't find for whatever reason, the penalty is unfair and unreasonable. When a player launches one into an abyss, the rule is lenient, as it might take 10 shots to get back to the fairway. (Personally, I care less about the leniency as usually that goes to non cashing players anyway).

In an effort to correct a marking "problem", we have created several more. Saying that this rule will teach those TDs, course designers, spotters and Autumn leaves to behave, is unrealistic at best. Very bad rule, potentially punishing good play and rewarding bad.



Dave, I hear and appreciate what you are saying. I simple disagree. I think that the new rule WILL result in better design, more spotters and better courtesy as players help to watch other players discs.

I don't think our rules have a "long way to go", I think that our players have a "long way to go" in learning, following and calling our rules, as do our TDs and Course Designers in creating courses that lessen the chances of a lost disc. The goal of a course pro and designer (one of them) should be to do their best to make a lost disc violation as rare as possible.

Saying that in lieu of TDs and Course Designers doing their jobs correctly we are going to create more lenient rules open to vast interpretations and judgment calls is like saying we will change our rules of play to make up for flawed basket designs. (Oh wait, we already do that...)

as long as there is reasonable evidence the disc went into the OB water before it disappeared, OB trumps lost disc.

OK here is my opinion on the lost disc rule for what it is worth.

First I think that it over penalizes because it is the only two stroke penalty that I know of because if you lose it you lose a stroke and then you have to retee which is another stroke because more often than not will only get you back to close to where you were at.

Second the argument about spotters is a good argument but at most B-tier and C-tier events, the people that want to be involved in the tourney are playing, it would be difficult to find enough volunteers for these events to spend two days watching for a lost disc.

Third the argument about course design and blind holes, I am really not for sure what is being suggested is it being suggested that courses should be straight and open. Because I am sure that most people would agree although often frustating the courses that are wooded and turning are a lot more fun than open and straight. There is no better feeling in disc golf for me than to watch a Sidewinder make a right hand turn at the exact right moment. Plus what about all of the great courses designed before this rule is put in place and even then I don't see designers drastically changing their designs.

Fourth, I hate to bring this up because of fear of making it worse because it may go the other way. I don't see the difference between losing a disc in bounds or losing it out of bounds. What is the difference between throwing into OB and having to guess the spot and losing it IB and having to guess the spot. They are both subjective even if throwing into water we have to guess where it went out at which is more difficult than throwing into trees. I usually know which tree it hit but guessing the spot from an elevated tee as it goes over water is tough. Now I just hope this doesn't backfire and cause OB to be a 2 stroke penalty as well.

This is not an issue that I feel greatly about one way or another because as long as you know the rule and it is the same for everyone I don't care a lot. But I do think that it over penalizes for a mistake. Here is my suggestion how about making it so for both OB and IB you have to play from the farthest away from the basket as it could have possibly went in at if in doubt or the last place it was seen, if it is a blind hole and made the turn play from the turn.

i agree with the gist of your post. The new lost disc rule is probelmatic at best. the old rule was too because there was too much variance between the lie different groups would give over the same throw.

so we need to come up with something better rather than simply criticizing the new rule. i like giving the player the option of stroke and distance or -- wherever it was last over the fairway minus 5 or 10 meters on the LOP plus penalty.
(in case the disc was lost beyond the pin the rule would have to say minus 10 meters away from the target on the LOP)

simply giving it whereever it was last over the fairway would not put enough risk into the type of shot that often leads to delays because the whole group must look for a disc when a guy tries to go over the top of a thick forest as a shortcut to the pin.

AviarX how did you come to the conclusion that o.b. trumps lost disc? Also could a jungle of foilage marked o.b. replace a lake or water o.b.. Is the reasonable evidence, last seen?

Wouldn't a found disc trump i.b./o.b.?

This was covered somewhere else before.
Mando, OB, Lost, 2M, IB

If you miss a mando, nothing else matters. The disc could end up OB, IB, or lost with the same result, you missed the mando.

OB, it doesn't matter if the disc is lost or found, it is still OB, unless you missed the mando.

Lost, can't be above 2M if you can't find it. It is lost unless it missed a mando, or is reasonably OB.

Above 2M, means that you found the disc, and it is more than 2M above IB teritory. It only matters if the disc is not lost, OB, or replaying a missed mando.

IB, bottom of the list. It is not IB unless it is none of the above.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Four basic types of "lost".

1. The invisible disc. Everyone saw the throw and knows where it is. Everyone walks up to within 15 ft of the disc. It will be found where everyone was already looking, eventually.

2. The misplaced disc. Everyone saw the throw and knows approximately where it is, but can't be sure as they didn't see the finish. The group can get within 20-75 ft., but still can't locate it.

3. The loose shot that goes over a bad area but might or might not come back to the fairway. The group can't be sure within 100-200 ft.

4. The wild shot that goes bad and continues to go bad. This is a bad shot, that no one even wants to look for. Probably lost, but it is going to take a long time to find out.

1. Shouldn't have been lost. Perfect shot buried itself somehow. Doesn't deserve any penalty, but gets 2 strokes. This is the most egregious. It has nothing to do with the skill we are contesting. It was no failure of the thrower. It was a failure of the lookers. Stroke them. Stroke the no spotters, the course designer, the TD, and the rules committee.

2. Not a perfect shot, but not bad. It gets lost. Needs a one stroke penalty. Not two. Give the other stroke to the RC.

3. The loose shot that will be hard to mark. Needs at least one stroke, maybe some distance too. No pity here.

4. The wild shot. Needs both strokes and a head shake. Rethrow is a blessing for this guy. Thank you RC.

That was fun to read, thanks. I like the new rule for 3 & 4; and the old rule for 1 & 2. Probably the RC only was thinking about 3 & 4 when they crafted the new rule?

It's nice to listen to someone explain things using "logic". Dave, why are you not on the Rules Committee?
And by that explanation, the "speed of play" argument only works for REALLY BAD shots. If 1&2 walk to their lies and look for 3 minutes and have walk back and retee, it takes WAY longer than the old rule and is way more harsh.

I'm interested in you providing specifics for examples one and two. By invisible do you mean that all of the players saw the entire flight of the disc and where it struck the earth in the middle of a field where the grass is cut to less than 3 to 5 inches with no bushes, taller grass, stands of trees or shuel for more than 60 feet in any direction?

Again, you are saying that because the course is poorly designed, maintained, spotted or courtesy low among the group in spotting that we should return our rules to a point where they are overly forgiving most of the time and that they should involve the opinions and judgment calls of competitors (who likely weren't even watching to begin with) to decide one of the most fundamental principles of our entire game, our lie.

A lost disc is a total and complete break with the flow of our play, the next lie given by our rules needs to be as consistant and free of bias and guesswork as possible.

I too am interested in improvements to our rules of play; but in my opinion, returning to the previous version of this rule is definitely not an improvement.

Here's an example at Patapsco a few years ago. I lost a disc at the Picnic within 20 feet of the pin on 14. Everyone in the group saw the 80 ft upshot and landing but we couldn't find it. That hole was the last one to get mowed by volunteers before the event and they never got to the area around the pin. I take a one shot penalty and make the putt (old rules for placement). At lunchtime, I go back and find the disc under matted down grass after about 7 minutes. Under new rules, it would cost me the penalty plus the distance which would be another shot when I shouldn't have had even the one shot penalty.

So Chuck, do you prefer the rule be re-written and if so -- how would it read? 2005 rule for Dave's 1 and 2 and 2006 rule for Dave's 3 &amp; 4?

At minimum, I would like the option for TDs to be able to specify drop zones on holes where lost discs might be more common so it's more similar to the OB rule.

At minimum, I would like the option for TDs to be able to specify drop zones on holes where lost discs might be more common so it's more similar to the OB rule.



Lost disc is not similar to the OB rule, mainly because the location of your disc is "known". If a disc is "known" to enter an OB area from which it couldn't reasonably return to IB, then the disc is OB.

Where as if a disc is not known to have entered and OB area and more importantly its precise and actual location can't be determined in any reasonable way then there has been a complete and total break in the flow of play and continuity lost as far as concerns the primary rule of disc golf:

<font color="blue"> 700 Introduction
The object of the game is to traverse a course from beginning to end in the fewest number of throws of the disc. Each consecutive throw is made from where the disc came to rest after the last throw. </font>

The only "known" location of a "lie" for that player is thier previous one. Again, this is different from OB where the location of thier "lie" IS "known".

Here's an example at Patapsco a few years ago. I lost a disc at the Picnic within 20 feet of the pin on 14. Everyone in the group saw the 80 ft upshot and landing but we couldn't find it. That hole was the last one to get mowed by volunteers before the event and they never got to the area around the pin. I take a one shot penalty and make the putt (old rules for placement). At lunchtime, I go back and find the disc under matted down grass after about 7 minutes. Under new rules, it would cost me the penalty plus the distance which would be another shot when I shouldn't have had even the one shot penalty.



How so? You had a "lost disc". How do you contrive that to the point that you "shouldn't have had even the one shot penalty"? Did you have a lost disc or not?

Your logic is similar to the perfect putt that spits out, but you want it to count anyway!?!

Again, what you seem to be getting at here is that the TD didn't prepare his/her course properly, which lends itself back to the idea that our rules should provide leniency for poorly groomed courses just as it does for poorly designed and produced targets, which is backwards (rules should set the highest possible standards and then leave it up to course pros and TDs to do their best to hit them; not set low standards figuring they can't or won't).

Anywhere you can think of to provide a drop zone for a lost disc violation I could more effectively provide an OB or casual relief area. Lost disc is not OB and it certainly is not a violation that deserves no penalty at all...

I'm interested in you providing specifics for examples one and two. By invisible do you mean that all of the players saw the entire flight of the disc and where it struck the earth in the middle of a field where the grass is cut to less than 3 to 5 inches with no bushes, taller grass, stands of trees or shuel for more than 60 feet in any direction?

Again, you are saying that because the course is poorly designed, maintained, spotted or courtesy low among the group in spotting that we should return our rules to a point where they are overly forgiving most of the time and that they should involve the opinions and judgment calls of competitors (who likely weren't even watching to begin with) to decide one of the most fundamental principles of our entire game, our lie.

A lost disc is a total and complete break with the flow of our play, the next lie given by our rules needs to be as consistant and free of bias and guesswork as possible.

I too am interested in improvements to our rules of play; but in my opinion, returning to the previous version of this rule is definitely not an improvement.



Nick, we need to deal with reality, not wishful thinking. The reality is this new rule is horrible, UNTIL all of the stuff you want done, gets done. It's not going to get done for years, if ever. We have to deal with that NOW. This new rule will not clean up the courses, redesign the courses, or provide new spotters. It won't stop the rain, or stop the snow, or stop the Autumn leaves from falling down, or prevent mown grass from hiding discs.

but your disc was not the fault of the TD was it. can you blame nature as the fault of the TD in all situations. the last place the disc was positively known to be was the tee. I got the penalty at Zebulon in NC. without defineable fairways like ball golf the only true place to mark is the previous mark.

I agree with the penalty.

I'm interested in you providing specifics for examples one and two. By invisible do you mean that all of the players saw the entire flight of the disc and where it struck the earth in the middle of a field where the grass is cut to less than 3 to 5 inches with no bushes, taller grass, stands of trees or shuel for more than 60 feet in any direction?

Again, you are saying that because the course is poorly designed, maintained, spotted or courtesy low among the group in spotting that we should return our rules to a point where they are overly forgiving most of the time and that they should involve the opinions and judgment calls of competitors (who likely weren't even watching to begin with) to decide one of the most fundamental principles of our entire game, our lie.

A lost disc is a total and complete break with the flow of our play, the next lie given by our rules needs to be as consistant and free of bias and guesswork as possible.

I too am interested in improvements to our rules of play; but in my opinion, returning to the previous version of this rule is definitely not an improvement.



Nick, we need to deal with reality, not wishful thinking. The reality is this new rule is horrible, UNTIL all of the stuff you want done, gets done. It's not going to get done for years, if ever. We have to deal with that NOW. This new rule will not clean up the courses, redesign the courses, or provide new spotters. It won't stop the rain, or stop the snow, or stop the Autumn leaves from falling down, or prevent mown grass from hiding discs.



The reality is what we make it. You'd like for us to base our rules on the rare situation where a disc is lost in the middle of a fairway, rather than on the 99% of lost discs that are deep in the rough and due to lack of spotting. I think that is a weak basis for changing back to a rule that was so ripe with the possibility for inconsistancy and bias.

If these TDs have situations where leaves have fallen in their fairways then they need to clean them up as best they can, inform players to spot extra carefully for each other and provide spotters when possible. All entirely within our immediate control and devoid of the possibility of rewarding folks that lose there discs off the fairways and in deep rough.

If it is 100% absolutely known that certain areas are rife with the possibility of losing discs then by all means make those areas OB with a drop zone, but don't reward 99% of bad throws because 1% of good shots get lost.

Maybe it's because 90% of his lost discs are types 1 and 2! :D

then maybe he should design a disc that beeps or has some other way of signalling the thrower where it lies. :eek: :D

clap twice, and the disc beeps and flashes....

Why not just extend the period of time allowed for looking for the lost disc from 3 minutes to 5 minutes? This would enable more discs to be found within the allotted time without penalty and save the walk back to the tee which takes at least 2 minutes.

It's not the search time length that needs to increase but an additional 15 seconds of bonus time like soccer needs to be available, because we all know that more discs are found just after regular time expires.

I was at first against it, and it's a little bit too much tough love, but you have to admit we look downright feverishly for our discs now. Just the thought of going back to where you threw is tremendous incentive to search like mad.

I didn't read the rest of this thread, so forgive me for repeating what someone must have said already.

clap twice, and the disc beeps and flashes....



I want one

Why not just extend the period of time allowed for looking for the lost disc from 3 minutes to 5 minutes? This would enable more discs to be found within the allotted time without penalty and save the walk back to the tee which takes at least 2 minutes.



While we're at it let's make the baskets 10 inches wider, we'd save countless minutes as folks would make more putts...

How about more than 6 out of 90 of you show up at your local course for clean up days and do some weed whacking, chainsawing, cut some grass and raking? How about TDs walk their courses prior to their events and identify trouble spots and mark them OB? How about our players know, follow and call our rules and take pride in the courtesy of watching each others throws and spot where necessary? How about we stop blaming our rules for problems and look at ourselves instead?

How about TDs walk their courses prior to their events and identify trouble spots and mark them OB?



How about changing the rule so courses like this Highbridge (http://www.campdiscoveru.com/gr1-6.htm) don't need to be laced with OB rope everywhere on big downhill shots?

...rather than on the 99% of lost discs that are deep in the rough and due to lack of spotting.


There goes nick again. Making up numbers out of thin air because he can't debate with anything else. Kind of like his "one in a thousand" discs that stick above 2 meters argument.



I think that is a weak basis for changing back to a rule that was so ripe with the possibility for inconsistancy and bias.


Hey nick....guess what? You still have the exact same possibilities for inconsistency and bias in this new rule! Read the part about what you when the disc is declared lost.

How about TDs walk their courses prior to their events and identify trouble spots and mark them OB?



How about changing the rule so courses like this Highbridge (http://www.campdiscoveru.com/gr1-6.htm) don't need to be laced with OB rope everywhere on big downhill shots?



I think those photos speak for themselves as far as what needs doing at highbridge.

I think those photos speak for themselves as far as what needs doing at highbridge.




But then you'd just have a wide open course like Brandywine where I assume you can still lose your disc in high grass rough. The schule at Highbridge is not weeds and scrub but young hardwood trees that replace the big ones to retain the course long term. That's all we need is for disc golf to be perceived as anti-environmental due to clear cutting young trees to comply with a misguided lost disc rule.

I think Nick is hoping that someday disc golf courses will all look like ball golf courses....wide open fairways with different lengths of grass. :confused:

I think Nick is hoping that someday disc golf courses will all look like ball golf courses....wide open fairways with different lengths of grass. :confused:



You'd be wrong then.

Losing your disc is losing your disc, even if we went back to the old rules there would remain a need for better designed courses, td course awareness and greater player courtesy.

You guys want OB lie rules for a lost disc?

Then make those areas OB.

If the area is in the middle of the fairway, then roll up your sleeves and fix it. If you can't, then provide a spotter. If you can't, then do what is necessary as a player to avoid losing a disc. If none of that is possible then don't expect our rules to save your hide when you lose a disc anyway.

Like I've said a few times, I'm open to improvements; going backwards is not an improvement.

going backwards is not an improvement.



It quite often is, and necessary if the original movement was in the wrong direction.

I think Nick is hoping that someday disc golf courses will all look like ball golf courses....wide open fairways with different lengths of grass. :confused:



Not even this will help. My friend and I lost two discs in the last tournament we played. This was a manicured course for the most part. Both were on the edge of the fairway. Both shots were plainly seen. There was no shule. My disc simply got under some grass cuttings and wood chips. I have seen discs buried in dirt kicked up on landing. Pine needles, sand, dirt, grass etc. Nothing to do with poor maintenance.

Chuck's Highbridge example is not unique. There are countless disc courses in much more natural settings than ball golf. That is our reality.

The Wintertime Open at Oak Grove park is rained upon every other year. When it does, it is impossible to find some discs exactly. The next day after the rain stops, usually a couple dozen discs are found. This is reality. The tournament has a date. It is usually an A or B tier. When it rains gently, no problem. Lost discs are a rarity, but they still happen. (usually type 2) When it rains hard, the tournament isn't cancelled. You play on. In 2005 several people lost their discs on putts. Seriously.

Tinicum with the mown fairways. One round, two lost discs just off the short mow. Everyone was watching and looking. Didn't help.

My reality says lost discs are about 1% of shots, but lost discs of type 1 and 2 are just as prevalent as type 3 or 4. Any time you have a blind shot with any topography at all, there is potential for lost disc, especially on manicured courses that won't stop rolls.

The old rule dealt with reality. Give the guy credit for the part of the shot you saw, give him a stroke, play on. The new rule doesn't deal with the reality of disc golf.

Like I've said a few times, I'm open to improvements; going backwards is not an improvement.



How about giving TD's the ability to suspend this rule on high mountain courses or on specific holes or the ability to provide designated drop zones without special approval from the PDGA? That way we don't change the rule, but we allow TD's the ability to tailor the rule to the course in play. In other words, unless specifically laid out by the TD in advance, the lost disc rule stands.

The two-meter rule is flexible for TD's, the OB rule is flexible. This rule should be flexible as well.

If you truly are as open as you state above, consider this viable compromise that has precedence.

I have a solution for lost discs.

1.) get rid of trees, high grass, sand, mulch, brush piles, and in the fall if leaves blow over from an adjoining properties.

2.)Then have the TD's that usually spend weeks getting courses ready take a month of work and camp on the course to groom several acres of property. The only problem I can see here would be the leaves that fell on hole number 1 by the time you get to hole 10 or so but let them worry about that.

3.) everyone that participates in a tourney must provide 3 spotters or they will be penalized 2 penalty strokes as a courtesy violation.

I believe this should eliminate most lost discs but I am not for sure. :D

Or we could just bulldoze and pave 10 acres of land and randomly place 18 baskets. If your disc is not on the pavement, you are OB. Problem solved. And no footing issues because all the lies would be concrete. And, we don't have to worry about 2MR. Just killed 3 birds with one stone.

actually I never thought of that and that would take care of those pesky elavation problems where you lose sight of the disc over a hill.

The paved area doesn't have to be flat. The problem is still taken care of because there is nothing to hide under.

Can you imagine the distance you could get on a downhill roller shot ?

Almost sounds like a skatepark !!!! :cool:

what about pot-holes though? could we count on all TD's to patch them before an event?

also, not sure Texas counts, but snow could still cause some trouble...

maybe we could get some technology like the kind they use in hockey to follow the puck with tracers. some kind of tracer trail that would lead to the disc might work. it could dissolve in say 5 minutes in case you're with one of those particularly s-l-o-w cards ... :mad: :D

All very funny, but how much trouble does your home course have right now with discs getting lost when they land right in the middle of the fairway?

I'll guess that it is fewer than you have discs getting stuck 2M above the playing surface. The difference is that you know precisely where the disc is that is 2M up, but can only guess where the lost disc went off to.

I understand our tendency to be forgiving where possible as far as our rules go during play. That's fine. A good thing often. But to just make stuff up out of whole cloth when there is no evidence "at all" to substantiate the "last place seen" ruling, we're taking it a bit far.

Lost discs are rare and getting rarer. The new rule will help in that regard.

Like I've said a few times, I'm open to improvements; going backwards is not an improvement.



How about giving TD's the ability to suspend this rule on high mountain courses or on specific holes or the ability to provide designated drop zones without special approval from the PDGA? That way we don't change the rule, but we allow TD's the ability to tailor the rule to the course in play. In other words, unless specifically laid out by the TD in advance, the lost disc rule stands.

The two-meter rule is flexible for TD's, the OB rule is flexible. This rule should be flexible as well.

If you truly are as open as you state above, consider this viable compromise that has precedence.



Those options are available, and due to their rare necessity, you just have to ask permission from the Competition Director. This is better than making a blanket rule that kills the underlying consistancy and fairness of the rule as it currently exists.

I have yet to hear a good reason anywhere for the use of the 2M rule, so I don't see your point on that one, but OB has options precisely because the location of the disc is "known".

A lost disc is a complete and total break from the continuity of our sports play. It shouldn't be treated like OB...