In 803.05 C it states that relief can obtained from harmful insects or animals. However, just returning from the BHMO I have developed a nice case of poison ivy. I knew I was in it on two separate shots. One was just past the basket (about 20 feet so it wasn't deep in the rough) and I had to contort myself to try to not touch (unsuccessfully) the leaves. I did miss both putts. This, to me, is a relief situation as poison ivy (oak and sumac too) is definitely harmful but ivy is not an insect or an animal. However, I am allergic as is 85% of the population (I did some research today). Maybe this would fall under 803.05 D where the group decides on relief, as harmful plants aren't specifically mentioned in the PDGA rule book. I am sure this topic has come up before. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks, Bernie, Michigan #23932

Sounds like the TD could have declared a special condition under 804.01 and establish a drop zone for when you go into the P.I., with or without a penalty.

I'd be interested to know why the rules grant relief from harmful animals but not harmful plants.

TD's can grant casual relief from cactus, poison ivy, brush piles or any other hazard on the course. If not specifically granted releif by the TD, the player always has the option to use the unplayable lie rule and relocate on the line of play up to 5 meters back, or to the previous lie with a one stroke penalty.

The TD did not specifically mention that poison ivy received relief. I do understand that I can always call the lie unplayable. However, let's say there are two golfers both in P.I. One is allergic & the other isn't. Without relief, the only chocies the allergy sufferer has is to accept the two week rash or add a stroke with the 5 meter relief. The other player then can play from his/her lie since he/she isn't affected by the P.I. This seems, at least to me, unequitable. It seems that with so many disc golf courses having poison ivy, sumac, & oak relief should be standard.

I'm allergic to it also, and the way I get around it is to wear long pants if I know the course has poison ivy that comes into play. You have to be careful about touching the pants afterwards, but unless you crush the leaves, the urushiol (poison stuff) won't get on you.

As course design and asthetics improve, hopefully poison plant abatement through killer chemicals will be a standard.

I agree that there should be relief for poison ivy and other dangerous plants, but where do we draw the line ?

Cactus ?
Palmetto ?
Mesquite ?

I think everything growing in San Saba had thorns.

In Waco, the PI is bad enough that there is no viable relief along LOP in many cases.

I get welts from Canadian bluegrass that last for days. Hmmm...

Intersting twist with the other plants mentioned. Being in Michigan I only have to contend with P.I. & snow! Seriously, I would like to see the term harmful plants added to the 2007 rules (803.05.C). In the meantime, I am going to ask every TD if relief from P.I. is available for that tourney. Will the rules committee see this thread? Any other thoughts?

Anything further on this?

Chuck, anyone on the rules committee, what's the take on it?

Logic dictates that the previous post about it being unequitable between people allergic and not allergic is absolutely correct.

The PDGA rules committee really should address this, as it's an unfair advantage situation. I'm getting a bit tired of having to take a stroke for an unplayable lie and watching competitors who are not allergic just play their lie with no problem/penalty whatsoever.

Poisonous plants need to be included as standard relief objects, especially those that are only poisonous to some people.

Without this rule, it's simply unfair.

I'm not on the Rules Committee. My suggestion would be to send a note to Carlton on the PDGA Contact page. It's definitely a tricky situation. My take on it as a TD would be to try and get PI areas cleared by the Park Dept first. Second, if a significant PI area was on the course, consider marking it as a casual relief area, no penalty hazard with required move to drop zone, or an OB area, especially if it enhanced the hole design from a risk/reward standpoint.

Thanks, Chuck. I just did.
Sorry, I made a misapprehension there.
If it helps, it's because I've seen so many knowledgeable posts by you on these boards.

I'll post back the answer if they don't.

I was on the Committee in the early 90s and I do try to stay up on the hot topics. This is one that's tricky like I said and I would rather finesse it in ways I described as a TD. It's somewhat like a person in a wheelchair. If it's known the course has some rough spots and wasn't designed for ADA access everywhere, there may be spots where the player just has to take an unplayable penalty to follow the rules. If it's known there are large patches of PI ahead of time, then players who are susceptible have to decide whether to play or risk the unplayable penalty in areas where they feel too exposed to the PI to play a shot.

Well, I didn't make much progress with the RC, but they do say they'll consider it for the next rules update.

Here are some excerpts of the correspondence:

Me to Carlton:
"The recommendation I'm trying to make is to mandate casual relief from poison oak (and other such poisonous plants) with no stroke penalty, as it gives those who are immune an unfair advantage.

As a matter of fact, Chuck seemed to even take it one step further, suggesting a mandatory relocation. I'm guessing because he must have realized that even by removing the stroke penalty, the immune players would still have an advantage by not having to move their lie backwards behind the poison oak to a safe lie.

What are the Rules Committee's thoughts on this?"

Carllton's response:
"Dear James,

Thanks for writing!!!

I tried to get "harmful plants" into the rules but it got voted down for some reason. If memory serves it's because some felt it was too open ended AND because such areas are generally best dealt with under the Special Conditions rule, rather than by a global blanket rule. This is clearly evidenced in the thread you sent me. Ruling for poison ivy in MI is different than cacti in TX and nettles in WVA.

TD's can handle it as they deem necessary. So I'm against a blanket mandate.

The game is alll about "playing it where it lies"...folks SHOULD gain an advantage if they do so...even when harmful plants are involved.

I'm allergic to PI. I just wade in and play like normal and then wash off carefully with my wate bottle right away. I never have problems.

Yours Sincerely;

Carlton Howard
PDGA Rules Committee Chairman"

My reply:
"Carlton:

Thanks for your reply, but I don't accept the argument(s) thus far.

Perhaps using the term "harmful plants" IS too generic, as it would cover cactus, nettles, etc. These affect everyone; nobody is immune. I can certainly understand the reticence to put something like that into the rules. Cactus and nettles after all, affect everyone equally as far as I know.

The poisonous plants I mention give an unfair advantage to the ~15% of the population immune from their effects. A small percentage of the population is also so allergic that your personal solution would almost be akin to Russian roulette. This is the crux of my argument.

I do understand what you say about it being a game of "playing it where it lies", but still take issue with the rule as it stands. Yes, a person SHOULD have an advantage by throwing their disc to a better position than the other player, but if player A and player B both land in poison oak 15' from the pin and player A is immune, but player B is allergic, player A has an unfair advantage.

Additionally, in the scenario I mention above, if the poison oak also extends 20' away from the basket, then player A is gaining a significant advantage over player B, as player B, if choosing to call an unsafe lie (instead of taking his chances in getting poison oak --- he's very, very allergic), he now has a 35' putt and his opponent has less than half of that distance AND player B has taken a penalty stroke. This is very, very unfair.

The best analogous argument I've heard so far defending not changing the rule is the natural advantage someone extremely tall would have in say, straddle putting over a bush, or using their height in some other advantageous manner not available to those of ordinary height. While I think this is a rather weak argument, I do have to admit that it is more analogous than any other argument I've heard or read so far in that it presents a situation where someone, through a natural, physical characteristic, has an advantage. There is something nagging at the back of my mind that I haven't yet pinpointed why this argument seems so weak to me. Maybe it's because I don't think anyone is going to take any penalty strokes because of that advantage.

Yes, it can be covered under the special conditions rule, or by marking areas OB, but the reality is that it simply is not happening. I just played the Otter Open in Monterey, CA last weekend. I asked the TD at a players' meeting about relief from poison oak and, while I believe he recognized that it was in fact an unfair advantage, all he said was that he MAY mark SOME of the WORST area OB next year. I believe this solution is just too much work for the TD, nor would it cover ALL instances, just most likely the most common occurrences.

As you're aware, the rules even state that a player may obtain relief from "harmful insects or animals".
I really don't understand why the RC will not simply add the words "dermatologically poisonous plants" to 803.05 C directly after "harmful insects or animals". This would at least remove the penalty stroke part of the inequity I'm discussing. There would remain, of course, the advantage of immune people (or people such as yourself willing to risk a possibly severe rash) not having to relocate their lie further from the hole. As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with the advantage of either being immune or taking your chances and not having to relocate your lie, I just want to get rid of the enormous inequity of some of us taking strokes while others don't have to.

If someone can effectively convince that the current situation is fair, I'll drop it, but until then, I'm going to continue to argue for a change. Yes, I'm aware that I have little power at my disposal, but I can be quite persistently persuasive when I set my mind to it. If you get tired of me, just send Conrad out to Hellyer to yell at me.

Thanks again,

-JPB"

And his response to that:
"James,

Hey, thanks for the feedback, and suggestion.

Like I say, I tried to get it in the current edition, but was shot down.

We'll review it for the next draft and see what happens.

In the meantime, TDs can deal with it under special conditions. If they don't, consider not going back to that event again.

take care,

chh"

I then get a little testy :mad::
"Carlton:

Thanks for the prompt reply. When is this next revision going to be?
Next year, I'll bet.
At any rate, no matter how what I've written below may seem, I am not a p*ssed off jerk trying to flame you and the PDGA and further my own agenda (but, fair warning, do say some seemingly ungrateful things below.) I do appreciate all your efforts (EVERYONE at the PDGA), and also appreciate the offer to give it another go next time.

Speaking of which, when it is brought up again, please ensure that it's not just "harmful plants" that are suggested, but rather "dermatologically poisonous plants". The mention of cactus, nettles, mesquite and other harmful plants detracts from the argument because they affect everyone equally. The issue here is that some are penalized, others are not. From what you shared of your last attempt, I believe you would have gotten further if the recommendation was more specific, but then I have no idea what you may be up against, as I've not heard any reasonable defense against my proposal yet.

Yes, I'm aware that this can/should be addressed by TDs, and I always have the option to not play any event which I choose, but with a minor PDGA rule change (which frankly seems an oversight to me) a lot of TD headaches can be avoided. I also (have to say at the risk of seeming like a jerk), as a dues-paying member of the PDGA, do not feel that I should have to sacrifice my DG event schedule because the PDGA seems to choose not to make appropriate, logical rule changes. In short, I think the current stance is simply "dumping" the issue onto the TDs unnecessarily because the RC hasn't been able yet to address it properly.

Does someone (ANYONE) want to share with me a VALID argument against my proposed rule change? I have not heard or read one yet.

Best wishes and kindest regards,

-JPB"

His reply:
"James,

Hey flame all you want (though you're not, you're simply making a rational suggestion) and my response is the same.

All things in due time.

I don't know when the next revision is...because I haven't been given marching orders for it.

It won't be in 2008 though. We'd have to be WAY into the revision process now and we are not, nor have we any desire to be (nor directions to do so).

Again, TDs CAN handle it. They do not. Did you send the TD of the recent event you mentioned the same length notes you sent us? I'd suggest that you do so that you can play there next year.

It's unfortunate, but the PDGA can not solve every issue that develops on the local level. We do try. We're not dumping anything on the TD that she shouldn't be handling to begin with. If her course is not safe (for everyone) to play, then she has more work to do. Use of a drop zone with such plants (at no penalty) would be an easy solution. we just used one this weekend here in Raleigh...with a steep slope near an eroding basket. Easy fix, and everyone understood and no one got hurt (or unfairly penalized).

Fear not though, I took your EXACT phraseology for fodder for our next revision.

I tried to get specific with poisonous plants as well last time. Unfortunately, since we're dealing with allergies...some folks are allergic to grass. So it can be an icy slope. There, valid or not, is one of the reasons.

I've about expended all the energy I wish to on this issue...until the next revision. If you'd like to tell me more, then let's set up a time for you to call.

take care,

chh"

And also a response from Conrad:
"My take on all this is that the presence of plants to which only some are allergic presents a situation that is
inequitable, but not unfair. The analogy of the tall player who can putt over bushes seems apt. A slightly
better analogy may be a lie in the middle of a thick bush, where only a tall guy can get his arm out. The only real
distinction that can be made is that an allergy is a medical condition, and height is a physical trait. Still, I
think players are responsible for taking both their medical and physical aspects into consideration when
they play.

If you're sensitive to poison oak (which I am, though not in a life-threatening way), you keep that in mind when
planning your strategy. If you land in or near it, you have to make a decision whether to risk a rash or take a
penalty. It's like declaring any "unsafe" lie - it's totally up to the player. A lie in some thick brush may be
playable for some, and not for others, based on a number of different facets (recovery skills, willingness to
get scratched up, etc).

My guess as to why the board veto'ed the addition of plants to casual relief is that they're generally seen as more
of an annoyance than a serious threat.

There's also much more danger of a slippery slope. If I have hay fever, can I take relief from ragweed?
As Carlton has suggested, just about every type of plant has a corresponding allergy or sensitivity.

The other side of the "unfair" coin can be argued as well. If I just threw a drive that's 15 feet from the pin,
sitting at the edge of a patch of poison oak and I have no sensitivity to it at all, I'm not going to be too happy
if I'm told I have to move my lie 30 feet back, out of the poison oak, because some people are sensitive to it.

While you could make some of these same arguments about the "harmful insects or animals" clause, I believe people
agree that a nest of bees or yellowjackets is intrinsically more of a health threat to the general population than
any sort of rash-producing plant.

I personally agree with leaving plants off the list, with the key difference being that (for the general population)
they are more annoyance than serious health threat.

TDs and other course maintainers can always make the course more attractive by removing harmful plants. They
did an amazing job at La Raza and Hellyer (in San Jose) last year.

-Conrad"

And from Dr. Rick:
"James and Carl,

It is a very tricky definition, since nearly 40% of us are allergic to something, and it would be up to the word of each player what that something is, in a given playing situation.

The number of people deathly allergic (literally!) to poison ivy is miniscule, and these folks should not even be on a disc golf course, or at least one where poison ivy is present. Most people just break out, and there are means to minimize that reaction, such as rinsing off, and using ivy-guard.

The other problem with getting relief from poison ivy, is that it is a vine, and the distribution of it is massive on some courses. You might have to get relief by going back to the tee pad! Although, most places around Kentucky, you can see where it ends, and could spot a lie there. However, most of the time it would be farther than 5 meters, which would require calling an unplayable lie and taking the 2 strokes.

The calling of an unplayable lie is decided by the player at his or her discretion, so this is the obvious option for any severely poision ivy infested lie already, under the current rules.

I feel your pain about having to take strokes when other players don't have to, purely based on genetics. I have the same disadvantage with regard to height and arm length (stupid short ancestors!). I guess that's just the nature of all sports competition! At least I have good genetics when it comes to accuracy.

Dr Rick"

What I think I should actually push for at this point is adding "poison oak/ivy/sumac" to 803.5 C., but in thinking about it, it does get tricky because someone could try to take this relief just to get out of bushes. I now think it would also need some language about "as agreed by the majority of the group or an official" or some such thing.

As many people have now told me, it does get tricky and may be best handled by the TDs as a special situation, OB, etc.

Just like Carlton, I've expended as much energy as I want to on this for now, and will revisit it at a later date.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I wanted to post some of this up here because I said I would, and it does help sometimes to know what's already been asked and answered.

I also do have to admit that this experience has helped to humble me and also to see how difficult it is to write rules that cannot be easily subverted. I also have a greater respect for those that hash this stuff out.

Grip & Rip (but make sure it doesn't land in poison oak/ivy/sumac)! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Thanks to All,

-JPB

I think the current rules are fair, take the penalty and play from a safe area when necessary, it's only a sport. I think each person has to make that judgement for themselves what they can safely play in and what they need to take relief for.

Everyone has physical traits that they can't do anything about such as height, handedness, age, oversleeping, physical loss (limb, finger), eyesight, hand size, finger length, etc. Allergic sensitivity is also in that same category. The only difference is that allergic sensitivity may result in a 1-shot penalty every so often whereas several of the other items involve cumulative micro differences, with the exception of the tall person or oversleeping traits (late penalties) that might save/cost a whole shot on occasion.

I think many of those with cumulative disadvantages might trade one of those for the poison ivy allergy that might be a one shot penalty every once in a while, especially since there's sometimes a chance to avoid it with strategic play. All of these elements are rolled up into a player's rating including the penalty for being late. Some think those penalty shots shouldn't be in their ratings. But if a player is prone to being late, it's part of their overall performance, just like a player who is more prone to go OB due to their approach to risk.

As Carlton mentioned, the items currently listed for casual relief affect virtually everyone equally since players take their stance on the ground, hurt if they get stung even if they don't go into anaphylactic shock, or are affected by physical obstacles in the way.

All good points, Chuck (though I had to think about the oversleeping for a bit... :confused: :confused: :confused: :eek: oh, apnea.)

So, it's the luck factor, eh?

I'm not going to win this one, am I?

:(

So, it's the luck factor, eh?




No need to start another 2m rule thread but sort of similar. Several players throw into the same area (just like a tree) and the allergic one gets a penalty and most others don't.

question for you on verticality. this happened this weekend. guy throws a shot and ends up under a concrete picnic table what are the players option as far as his stance?

Even if the TD states that cement picnic tabletops CAN be a playing surface if a disc lands on it, discs landing underneath it must be played from there just like the table was a bush. There is no verticality rule except as it pertains to OB or suspended discs. If a disc lands on top of a picnic table that the TD did not specify could be played from, the disc is again marked vertically downward as if it landed in a bush.

thanks

Down at Z Boaz on the Temp course there were soccer goals with nets on it. I never heard an exact rulling on how to play this but I think that this is an odd obstacle to have on a course. How should play it? Could you mark on top of the net and stand on it, or do you to play out and then throw to the basket?

You have to pitch out unless the TD specified free relief. it's no different from landing in a heavy stand of cedars where you can't throw forward.

Down at Z Boaz on the Temp course there were soccer goals with nets on it. I never heard an exact rulling on how to play this but I think that this is an odd obstacle to have on a course. How should play it? Could you mark on top of the net and stand on it, or do you to play out and then throw to the basket?


I hit a GOOOOOOOOOOOOAL on that course and was planning to take my stance behind the net and stick my arm through it to putt at 16's basket. The disc slid underneath the net so it wasn't necessary.

I think you could do that. It's no different from weaving your hand thru some branches or putting your hand thru the bamboo on USDGC #7 like Climo did to putt.

Hi Chuck,

I have a similar question and cannot recall where the rule/ruling information is located.

Situation: a disc slides underneath a large fallen tree trunk, and there is no physical way to have your foot (or any other body part) on the ground and within (I think it is 30 cm?) the line of play of the disc when taking your next stance to throw. The player then asks the group, "Am I supposed to stand on the log to take my next shot?" Usually the other three look at each other, scratch their heads, and say "Yeah, I think that's what you have to do."

Should the player instead receive casual relief? Which rule(s) apply in this case?

Thanks!!
Steve

Never mind. I think this is what I was looking for:

"(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle unless a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, or if a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole, the player�s lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unplayable lie and proceed in accordance with 803.06. "

So instead of having the guy perch atop a log to throw, he can move back a bit and throw without a penalty stroke. :cool:

Cheers,
Steve

If you can reach your hand in to grab the disc, then you should be able to have your hand on the LOP. If not, it falls under the large solid obstacle rule(803.04E) and one must throw from immediately behind said obstacle.

Would a large log be considered "a broken branches no longer connected to a tree"? I suppose it technically is, but I personally do not like that interpretation.

Good point. I was thinking along the lines of being able to take a somewhat "normal" stance. I would not suggest that a player stick their hand under the log and play while in a crouched position, touching an area normally reserved for one's foot. If they wanted to do that, go for it. But if they asked what can they do, I will remind them of the above quoted rule and that they can move their marker disc out from under the log.

Cheers,
Steve