Just finished a tournament and one of the holes has an interesting configuration. The basket is roughly in the center of a 60 ft in diameter, man-made 'mound' that is about 2 m above the rest of the playing surface. This mound was built for the basket, and the top is level. The mound is still being completed, and ultimately the entire slope will be covered with recycled telephone pole sections with the exception of a path up and a path down (on the far side).

The TD gave the following instructions:
1. If the disc lands/settles on the part of the slope that has telephone poles, do not play from that spot, but instead mark it on the line of play at the base of the slope (i.e. on level ground) WITHOUT a penalty stroke.
2. If the disc lands/settles on the part of the slope that has dirt (but is neither the entrance nor exit path), do not play from that spot, but instead mark it on the line of play at the base of the slope (i.e. on level ground) WITHOUT a penalty stroke.
3. If the disc lands on the exit or entrance path, play it from where it lies.

The TD did not say the slope was OB. He did not say you were getting casual relief (although in essence that is what was going on). He just said move it down the slope, don't disturb the dirt, and don't play on the telephone poles.

Ok, given that lengthy background, here's where the question arose in our group. One player actually landed on the mound and stayed up there, sliding/skipping to the edge with the telephone poles (which protrude above the mound ever so slightly). We agreed the disc was partially on the mound, so he could play from up top. But then there was a question of if he could take 1 m in from the edge of the telephone pole.

One person argued no, since that is for OB. The TD did not call it OB.

Another person argued the poles were not a playing surface, so he should not stand on them and could get 1 m in from the edge.

Ultimately the group agreed to give the player 1 m in from the edge.

So I looked up the OB rule and it seems like we applied the rule incorrectly. It was a group decision, and we did what we thought was fair.

I'd love some views on this.
Cheers,
Steve

i think giving the player 1 meter in was a good, reasonable, fair resolution that seems to accord with the TD's intention.
The play-it-where-it-lies zealots might not like it, but you can't please everyone :eek: :D

did you check with the TD to see how he/she would have played that lie?

THE ANSWER IS.......


TAKE A PROVISIONAL!

thats what the rule is there for, record both scores, ask the td after the round and apply the appropriate score to that hole.

^ what he said ^

Yes, we should have had the player take a provisional and let the TD decide.

But I am still unsure if, according to the rules, 1 m is allowable, since the area was not OB. I guess the ruling of the TD trumps the official rules, and where the rules are not clear, his/her decision IS the rule.

Cheers,
Steve

The proper ruling would be to bring it back down to the bottom. In essence, the TD declared a buncr rule without saying so. Buncrs are essentially a forced Casual Relief zone (the reason bunCR is spelled that way) where you are not allowed to take a stance in it. So if a player is not far enough beyond the casual relief/buncr zone to place a marker and get a foot sideways behind the marker and take a legal stance, it's the same as landing in the relief area and either moving back on the LOP like this situation or going to a drop zone or rethrowing which would be the other two buncr options a TD could specify. It's also similar to the solid object relief rule where you get free relief behind the object if you can't take a legal stance in front of it.

I have to agree with Chuck. If the player could not take a stance, without relief then the only relief was back. There is nothing that gives a player the right to move 1 meter unless a) the lie is near OB, b) there is casual relief, not in this case no closer to the basked and back or c) the TD allowed for it in special rules. The disc was lieing substantially in a "do not use" relief. Maybe a better way would be to say, unusable casual relief. Look at the guidelines for casual relief and assume it must be taken. Could the player have taken the meter then?

The only time a player can take an extra meter or more is when the TD allows extended casual relief according to the rule, and that's only more than 5m without penalty going farther from the basket on the LOP until player is out of the casual relief area.

Thanks for the info about bunCRs.

Had I known that, and assuming no one else did, would it have been possible to take three provisionals? Basically, most would have argued give him relief. The player might have said "I can legally play it where it lies" and wanted to go that route. And finally I would have sent him to the bottom of the mound given my message board wisdom. :D

Could there have been three provisionals?
1. With half of the disc on dirt and half on the telephone pole (non-playable surface), the player could have contorted to play it from the front edge of the disc, no movement of the lie.

2. Give the guy 1 m relief.

3. Head down to the bottom of the mound and putt up.

Then let the TD decide which one was best.

And do you play provisionals after everyone else has holed out?

Thanks, this has been very helpful.
Cheers,
Steve

There's no justification for taking a 1m provisional since OB was not involved. The two options would have been to mark it and play it where it was with the player having part of their stance in the relief area. Or, take it down below as it should have been played.

IF there was actually room to get behind the mark legally, there would be no reason to do any of the other options, therefore the answers in this thread assume that the guy could not take a legal stance. IF he could take a legal stance, but was trying to get relief to get a more comfortable stance, that is someone trying to find a rule to give them an advantage. if you can take a legal stance from the lie, there should be no question as to where the player should play from.

Last year at that same tourney on that same hole my disc landed in the same spot. I marked it and took a weird stradle stance and missed the putt. I didn't take a meter since the side of the mound wasn't OB.
I think that after they get the hole completed with the poles, they should make it OB if it lands on those poles and put in a drop zone at the base of the ramp.

anyone have a photo of this hole?

The buncr rule seems more appropriate for this type of setup. OB sounds inappropriately more punitive based on the mound description.

There's no justification for taking a 1m provisional since OB was not involved. The two options would have been to mark it and play it where it was with the player having part of their stance in the relief area. Or, take it down below as it should have been played.



Isn't at least part of the point of the provisional rule taking shots that there's no justification for? I think the players in the group clearly thought the proper thing was to give him the 1 meter relief, and playing the provisional would have given them an opportunity to see their error.

On a related note, Steve's question brings up a point I'd like a little clarification on.

1. if an argument arises in which a group believes there are 3 potential, and exclusively correct, options to play a lie, can the player finish the hole in each manner, in accordance with the provisional rules?

yes, but in this situation, if there was actually room for this player to take a legal stance on top of the mound, there would be no reason for the player to have to play a provisional from the bottom of the mound. (claiming relief)

The buncr rule seems more appropriate for this type of setup. OB sounds inappropriately more punitive based on the mound description.


There is plenty of room to lay up on this hole. It basically has a moat around it. So go for it and take your chances. I like the OB scenerio on this hole. It would probably be the only hole on the course with OB anyway. A lot of courses need some toughening up.

Tough vs challenging are too separate things. Making this OB and going to a drop zone at the bottom sounds like a virtual 2-shot penalty? The buncr makes it mostly a 1-shot penalty with the chance to make an exceptional save with a really long putt.

yes, but in this situation, if there was actually room for this player to take a legal stance on top of the mound, there would be no reason for the player to have to play a provisional from the bottom of the mound. (claiming relief)



Unless he had to place a foot on the forced relief area and only the player could say he had to. We can argue with the player about it, but if he said that he could not take a stance without one foot on or in the forced relief area then I think he had to move down.

still only two situations for provisional shots then.

Throwing an OB drive on this hole would result in a 4 99 per cent of the time, yet you can still get a 3 with a 57 foot putt. I don't see where this is a 2 shot penalty. Who came up with the spelling for buncr anyway? That seems challenging to me. :p

If you land in OB within 30 ft of the pin and take a move backward to a drop zone, that's almost a 2-shot penalty. Using the buncr rule emulates the bad luck of a rollaway more like a sloped green near the pin in ball golf if you don't lag from the right direction.

Buncr is spelled that way because it's different from a bunker you actually play from like ball golf. The CR stands for Casual Relief which is how buncrs are played. The spelling may be unusual but how to play a buncr is now more obvious when you see it listed as a hazard on a hole.

The proper ruling would be to bring it back down to the bottom. In essence, the TD declared a buncr rule without saying so. Buncrs are essentially a forced Casual Relief zone (the reason bunCR is spelled that way) where you are not allowed to take a stance in it. So if a player is not far enough beyond the casual relief/buncr zone to place a marker and get a foot sideways behind the marker and take a legal stance, it's the same as landing in the relief area and either moving back on the LOP like this situation or going to a drop zone or rethrowing which would be the other two buncr options a TD could specify. It's also similar to the solid object relief rule where you get free relief behind the object if you can't take a legal stance in front of it.



Do you ever read all the posts of a thread? :D

Dang! He beat me to it! :eek:

I would allow three differing provisionals, or more, if the situation seemed to call for it.

The provisional is provided to have the player play the course correctly even when the group doesn't know the rule. And to not unduly slow down play by calling over the TD or non-playing official.
There is that rule about standing aside though.

How many players have had a group stand aside and let players through while waiting for an official?

I just asked "who" came up with the challenged spelling of bunker. Oh wait, I have to putt fr a brde. :p

Gd wn Knne. F its nt ob thn its prlle a buncr hll. :D

I just asked "who" came up with the challenged spelling of bunker.


CRse Designers group ;)

Another question.

In the case of a buncr, does the non-playable area description apply to the mark, or the stance, or the run-up?

There is really no provision in the stance rules that declare a stance partially in a buncr to be an illegal stance since the area is technically in bounds.

If buncrs are indeed "no stance" zones, then should the rule that applies when they interfere with a legal stance be the OB relief rule, or large solid obstacle rule? I can see arguments both ways and think it should be clearly identified in the buncr description.

The buncr is not yet defined in the rules yet but it falls under the special conditions rule similar to the Bluebonnet Q&A (Rules Q&A not back online yet). It's essentially a required casual relief area, not optional. In which case, neither the lie nor stance may be taken in the relief area. Relief would be either LOP (default), drop zone or rethrow if specified by the TD.

Chuck, you are one happening dude. I'll bet you were the captain of your debate team.

No debate team in those old days at my school but I was captain of Quiz Bowl and Chess teams. ;)

When the bunCR scenario is eventually defined in the rulebook (I assume it will be one day), is there any chance that it could be defined in a way that would allow 1m relief as in OB?

I think that it should be defined as such. It seems extremely punitive to punish someone who makes it over the buncr, but is unable to take a stance (especially if the penalty would be a rethrow as is sometimes the case). While I understand that this can't happen right now since they are being treated as casual relief, I think it would be good to right that in when buncrs are eventually defined.

While I understand the logic in that suggestion, the counter point is the solid relief rule which also doesn't allow 1 m toward the target like OB. If anything the solid object rule can be more punitive than a buncr since you have to throw over or around what could be a large object. I sense people wouldn't want a player to get 1m toward a target when they have a lie up against a tree. I'm not sure people really like the 1m toward a target if necessary when next to OB. However, many times OB is part of a park boundary and there's no option to move backwards on the LOP anyway. So, the rules allow the 1m only for this situation and no others so far. I think the buncr should be played more like a solid object than OB but I guess the RC can take a look at it.

Using USDGC 17 as an example, a player landed safe but was leaning against the hay bales. Under the old OB rules, they would get 1 m relief in from the bales. Under the buncr are you implying their lie could be safe, but they would have to retee to get a lie? Doesn't make sense to me and seems contrary to the intention.

The USDGC made the choice to interpret the buncr rule that way with a retee in all instances so it doesn't seem out of line. I've seen situations where a disc is leaning up against the fence near a pin and the player had to mark and throw from the other side of the fence. In fact that could happen on 7 at the USDGC. In addition, a closed utility building not called OB was near a pin and a player had to go to the other side of the building (using solid object relief) to throw when up against it on the pin side. Remember that the TD can deal with these apparently "unfair" scenarios based on how they mark and define the course rules in the first place.

Basically what you said was accurate Steve, but the logistics of what went on, at least for me, were a little different. The TD explained the rule, then as questions surfaced he said "I just don't want any dirt to be moved/eroded", and that the "path" leading up the hill was ok. (The problem was, the path was not clearly defined. There were some wood chips that kind of faded away to the weaker or more eroded part of the hill.) He also said "I just don't want anyone hurt" and "please be careful". Then someone shouted out "group decision", further adding to the confusion. In my group during the first round, 2 people landed on the hill that were very close to the path but probably 3-4 feet away. We deemed that if they were not going to move dirt while taking a stance they did not have to move down. The reason we said this was because the group in front of us played from the hill and because the TD had said he just didn't want erosion or people to get hurt.

I think the TD explained it pretty clearly originally but I also think too many questions surfaced after he announced it and he didn't really know how to respond.

As far as what your group determined, since the TD did not say "no it's not a group decision", then I think you guys did the correct thing.

Having said all that, I agree that it "should" be played like a bunnnnnnnccccccccccrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. :D:eek: :cool:/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :) :( :o:p ;) /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :mad::D

We also have to remember this was not a PDGA event. Otherwise I probably would have said something to the guy who yelled "f.....ck, God D... it!" after EVERY shot and slammed his bag down EVERY time during the first round. Oddly enough I played pretty [censored] good with him in my group.

It's funny, I've heard a few tales of an open player screaming into his hat during a CVS tourney. Witnessed a few bag slammers as well. I guess the better you get, the faster your pampers fill up.

The hole in Frizno shall be known as Buncr Hill from this day hence! Let it be written!

Given that Chuck wrote:
"Buncrs are essentially a forced Casual Relief zone (the reason bunCR is spelled that way) where you are not allowed to take a stance in it."

shouldn't it be Forced Casual Relief (you have no choice, which is different from regular CR, where you do), and therefore bunFCR? :o

Also, as Mitch pointed out (and he was in the group) we were given orders to make a group decision. Usually I am ok with this, but I've played with groups that can make very different calls on the same situation, and this is driven by players and their attitudes.

For example, I noted that some groups ahead of us were playing from the hillside, whereas others were playing from the base. I asked for our group to make a decision on what we would do BEFORE we teed off, that way no one would be unclear. Although we all agreed to follow the TDs instructions, there were some who said their group did it slightly different during the first round. Some groups played from the hillside if they could do so safely and without disturbing the soil. This gives an advantage since it is closer and higher to the pin.

Given there was no consensus on the "TD rules" among the players I spoke with, I would be hard pressed to call anyone I saw on the hillside for an infraction. And also scant opportunity.

At future CVS events on this course I am sure this will be clarified, and all of the logs will be in place, so it's not really that big of an issue. :D

Cheers,
Steve

bunFCR? :o





Wow, Steve! Watch your language!!!
Casual Relief has always been "behind" your original shot.

So, did Oates birdie this hole twice?

Hey Kenny,

He did not birdie it in the second round--I am not sure if any of us did.
Cheers,
Steve

Hey Kenny,

He did not birdie it in the second round--I am not sure if any of us did.
Cheers,
Steve



I guess my monster putt from the bottom wasn't very memorable then! : :(

First round I putted from the hill and missed horribly. Probably Karma in action.

It's funny, I've heard a few tales of an open player screaming into his hat during a CVS tourney. Witnessed a few bag slammers as well. I guess the better you get, the faster your pampers fill up.



The guy I played with the first round was an AM and probably not all there so it was more amusing than anything. Not saying there aren't some open players who get angry but in general they are few and far between in the Open ranks. Yelling into the hat is one thing. The guy I was playing with was screaming at nearly the top of his lungs every shot! Even the good ones! :D

and therefore bunFCR?

Cheers,
Steve



lmao :D