Player Tom asks Player Bob to spot his drive and to prevent his disc from going into OB Lake. Tom drives and his disc catches an edge and starts to role towards the water. Right before the disc rolls into the water, Bob puts his foot out and stops the disc.
Tom marks his lie where the group decides the disc was going OB and takes a one penalty stroke for going OB.

Question1: Did Player Bob violate 803.07C Interference?

If it is obvious that a player’s disc will go OB whether it’s into a lake, or roles past an OB line where beyond the line is say a 1,000ft drop off, can you assist in saving the disc upon request of the player.

Question2: Can you have a player act as a backstop to prevent the disc going OB?

Say I’m putting downhill and beyond the basket is OB water. I ask another player to stand by the OB line behind the basket and stop my disc from going OB water.

The answer is to contact the Rules Committee since no one can give you an official answer here.

The answer is to contact the Rules Committee since no one can give you an official answer here. Thanks for your help :-) I guess your answer is based on my last sentence.

I'll edit Please only reply if you KNOW the answer, and not what you think the answer is, Thank you. I’m not trying to start another 100+post topic here, just want to know the ruling. .

See 803.07C - Bob "consciously alter[ed] the course of a thrown disc", didn't he? It doesn't say that said player is absolved if the player was asked by the thrower to do so.

See 803.07C - Bob "consciously alter[ed] the course of a thrown disc", didn't he? It doesn't say that said player is absolved if the player was asked by the thrower to do so. Yeah, that is what I was thinking too. When I was at the NT Memorial this year, a player was upset at me because I didn't stop his disc going into the water. I told him sorry, but in the back of my mind I thought I would be in violation of 803.07C and that's why I just left the disc go. He told me I could of stopped it and I wasn't sure. The second time at another event, I did stop the disc after the player asked me. So I'm not sure who is right.

Let's take a drastic take on this, say the disc is heading for a baby carriage, do I just let the disc hit the baby carriage or do I attempt to stop the disc and so then my reward is a two stroke penalty?

What is in compliance with the Rules of Play, and what is the right thing to do, may conflict. In the drastic case above, I would hope you would stop the disc, and let the consequences fall where they may.

I, for one, would not want to be the person to penalize you for that action.

Let's take a drastic take on this, say the disc is heading for a baby carriage, do I just let the disc hit the baby carriage or do I attempt to stop the disc and so then my reward is a two stroke penalty?

801, safety first.

Player Tom asks Player Bob to spot his drive and to prevent his disc from going into OB Lake. Tom drives and his disc catches an edge and starts to role towards the water. Right before the disc rolls into the water, Bob puts his foot out and stops the disc.
Tom marks his lie where the group decides the disc was going OB and takes a one penalty stroke for going OB.

Question1: Did Player Bob violate 803.07C Interference?

If it is obvious that a player’s disc will go OB whether it’s into a lake, or roles past an OB line where beyond the line is say a 1,000ft drop off, can you assist in saving the disc upon request of the player.

Question2: Can you have a player act as a backstop to prevent the disc going OB?

Say I’m putting downhill and beyond the basket is OB water. I ask another player to stand by the OB line behind the basket and stop my disc from going OB water.


An excellent set of questions, Patrick.

You have discovered another grey area of our holey rule book. I believe the action is legal, and no penalty should be assessed, provided the group agrees on where the disc would have went OB.

Let's review the relevant rules in this case:

801.01 Courtesy
A. Players should not throw until they are certain that the
thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure
anyone present. Players should watch the other members of their group
throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure
compliance with the rules.

I believe that a player could site this rule to allow another player/caddie to backstop, for the rule says players should aid in locating errant throws. Let's remember courtesy for a change, Exczar.


Of course, remember if the player/caddie touches the disc, even if trying to get out of the way, the throw must be declared OB. Play with a one stroke penalty one meter from the OB line.

Thanks for your help :-) I guess your answer is based on my last sentence.

I'll edit .

If you would have just checked out the other thread on this exact same subject, then you would have understood what Chuck is saying. There seems to be no set conclusion as to what is legal in this matter and what is not. So Chuck is saying go to the Rules Committee and then you'll have the conclusive answer that you will not get from everyone here.

See 803.07C - Bob "consciously alter[ed] the course of a thrown disc", didn't he? It doesn't say that said player is absolved if the player was asked by the thrower to do so.

Your interpretation is entirely too harsh. The rule was written to provide a penalty to a player who cheats by touching another player's disc or his own disc that is still moving.

In the situation Patrick describes, there is not a willful attempt to cheat. It is agreed by the group that if the backstopper touches the disc, the disc will be declared OB where the group determines it would have went OB.


Let's be courteous and friendly---let's change the complexion of the pDGA.

The answer is to contact the Rules Committee since no one can give you an official answer here. I've submitted the same initial questions to the RC today. If I hear back from them, I'll post the RC's response.

Chalybeate Springs near Bowling Green (used in BG Ams) has two holes back to back (14 & 15 I think) where this could really come into play(over a cliff). I lost a champ Teebird there three years ago and went back to get it after the round to find it gone. Crossing the painted OB line to retrieve during your round was automatic DQ for safety reasons. A guy called me from California last fall to say he'd found the missing Teebird at Morley Field in San Diego that week. Two years to get from KY to CA go figure!

This is a great example where the spirit of the rule and the wording of the rule don't mesh. Unfortunately, in any group (sports, civic affairs, lawmakers, clergy) there are hard-core literalists who say the written word is the only thing to go by. I disagree in most situations, and this definitely falls into the category of interpretation is for the best. IMO

I have a question regarding 803.07C Interference since this has come up several times now while playing in PDGA events this year. I've posted my question online in the forums and was informed to contact RC to get a definite answer on this matter. It would be great to provide a reply back to the general audience on the result, thank you.

Player Tom asks Player Bob to spot his drive and to prevent his disc from going into OB Lake. Tom drives and his disc catches an edge and starts to role towards the water. Right before the disc rolls into the water, Bob puts his foot out and stops the disc.
Tom marks his lie where the group decides the disc was going OB and takes a one penalty stroke for going OB.

Question1: Did Player Bob violate 803.07C Interference?

If it is obvious that a player’s disc will go OB whether it’s into a lake, or roles past an OB line where beyond the line is say a 1,000ft drop off, can you assist in saving the disc upon request of the player.

Question2: Can you have a player act as a backstop to prevent the disc going OB?

Say I’m putting downhill and beyond the basket is OB water. I ask another player to stand by the OB line behind the basket and stop my disc from going OB water.

Look forward to hearing the results on this. Thank you,
Patrick P


Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [PDGA] Rules Committee: 803.07C Interference

Patrick,

I think those amount to the same question. There's nothing in the rules that specifically provides for that. As long as the group agrees, it seems reasonable to overlook 803.07.C in the interest of avoiding losing a disc. If there's any doubt about whether you trust the spotter to make the right call, then you probably shouldn't do it.

I agree with the RC. I think as long as the group agrees beforehand, then it would be okay to help save another player's disc. If the disc is clearly heading OB, the thrower would automatically receive an OB penalty and the group would come to an agreement of the location of the lie.

You could always use 801.01 E. Littering is a courtesy violation.

If you let the disc go OB in water or a Cliff it could be considered Littering as plastic or rubber is not naturally occurring in most places and cases.

However it is my opinion that the disc should not be allowed to be used the rest of the round in these cases as it would not have been able to be used had you let it go over the cliff or in the deep water.

I can't say I agree with the RC. The opportunity to lose a favorite disc definitely affects the shot. Once again we are taking risk out of the risk/reward assessments.

Maybe I'll go OB, maybe I'll make the shot: maybe I got for it.

Maybe I'll lose my disc, maybe I'll make the shot: I'm probably laying up!

I agree with you, rhett.

I can't say I agree with the RC. The opportunity to lose a favorite disc definitely affects the shot. Once again we are taking risk out of the risk/reward assessments.

Maybe I'll go OB, maybe I'll make the shot: maybe I got for it.

Maybe I'll lose my disc, maybe I'll make the shot: I'm probably laying up!

Bingo! We have a winner..... ;)

I agree with you guys too - don't interfere with a disc that is still in play, even if it means that it will be lost if you do not interfere with it.

Sometimes, I think the RC (or someone representing the RC) comes back with an interpretation such as the one cited just to clear it out of the queue.

When an "official" interpretation includes a phrase that says that if a group agrees, a certain rule can be overlooked, that sets off a red flag with me. I can understand the "speed of play" justification for putting out of turn, because it is not supposed to have an effect on each player's play, but stopping a disc from becoming lost definitely could have an effect on how a player might execute that shot.

I don't understand why people assume that losing equipment during a round is an intended or desireable piece of the risk/reward equation, it shouldn't be. I understand that there are some types of holes where a player is faced with a choice of risking losing a disc in addition to a penalty stroke however that doesn't mean that it's better that way. If losing the disc is supposed to be part of the risk/reward on a hole shouldn't make a rule saying you can't get your disc back from the guy with the waders? Is it fair that the risk reward equation is different depending on your financial status or access to plastic as in the sponsored players? Losing discs during a round is an inevitable part of the game however that risk should be reduced whenever possible to make sure players are penalized on the scorecard for bad shots or poor risk management not in their pocketbook. Do you like courses where the schule off the fairway is so long that griplocked drives are lost as often as not?

This has been an interesting topic so far and it is hard not to agree with both sides here. One side is saying that it reduces the risk of a shot if you allow a player to stop another�s disc going OB. I can agree with the logic here. If no one was going to stop my disc from going OB, I would more likely consider to lie up for a shot then take a run at the basket. There have been times where I have even decided to throw a different disc fearing potential of it getting stuck in a tree and then I wouldn�t be able to play with it the rest of the round. So I opted to throw another disc instead.

But what about spotters and volunteers at events who do attempt to stop a player�s disc going in the water or OB? Is there a violation of the rules for their (requested/unrequested) assistance? What would be the difference asking a player on the card to assist when there isn�t a spotter or volunteer?

Just curious, what other popular sport is out there where a player would potentially lose a piece of their playing equipment during play? Is this one of the unique differences of disc golf from other sports, that part of the risk of the game is losing your playing equipment, therefore choose wisely before you potentially throw away your favorite all time disc?

Scenario (How to make disc golf, not fun):

Tom putts. His disc catches an edge and starts to roll towards Bob, who is standing beyond an OB line where there is a 500ft drop-off behind him. The disc rolls towards Bob, goes OB, and then starts to head downhill. Are we saying in our sport of disc golf, that Bob should in no way attempt to stop Tom�s disc? If so, then Tom has to go look for his disc, and everyone on the card is required to help out, so everyone enjoys their 500ft climb down the hill in search of Tom�s disc. Two minutes into looking it, Tom finds his disc, and then everyone enjoys their 500ft climb back up the hill. This upcoming weekend I�m about to go play 7,000ft up on a mountain, and I know that there will be a lot of errant throws, so this scenario could potentially come into play. What to do?

I, too, have enjoyed the discussion here. I was searching for a metaphor and have finally found it. Some want us to play real war and actually die when we get shot. Others want to play fantasy games and perhaps get hit by a paintball or laser with simulated death. Since we're all out to have fun I opt for paintball. I will take the penalty for my OB shot and will hope to avoid any other penalties or injuries. If we want to give credence to Rhett's post we can be forbidden from playing the "lost" disc for the rest of the round. Is that enough risk/reward or do we need an actual pound of flesh?

I disagree with the RC's ruling. Fundamentally, there should be no circumstance where a group can unilaterally decide to disregard a plainly worded rule.

Another problem I see with the ruling is it potentially gives my opponent in another group an unfair advantage if his group agrees to allow the interference but mine does not.

It is a huge psychological advantage to attempt the shot with no fear of losing the disc.

--Mike

I agree with that point, the decision should not be up to the card as one card may decide differently than another.

I, too, have enjoyed the discussion here. I was searching for a metaphor and have finally found it. Some want us to play real war and actually die when we get shot. Others want to play fantasy games and perhaps get hit by a paintball or laser with simulated death. Since we're all out to have fun I opt for paintball. I will take the penalty for my OB shot and will hope to avoid any other penalties or injuries. If we want to give credence to Rhett's post we can be forbidden from playing the "lost" disc for the rest of the round. Is that enough risk/reward or do we need an actual pound of flesh? I couldn't agree more. I think there is the letter of the law and then what people actually do in the field of play.

I really want to see some of these people crawl down the edge of a 500ft cliff to help retrieve a disc when a player could simply poke his foot out to stop the disc rolling downhill after it has already been established of going OB.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a "sense of less risk" of losing a disc if you ask a player to help stop it. Somehow though, I'm finding conflict with a direct statement from the rules, "Disc golf is a game that expects high standards of etiquette and courtesy" and then not helping someone from losing their disc. Maybe etiquette and courtesy are not applicable to this scenario?

I've played in tournaments where the T.D. specified that discs over the cliff, or over the fence, were not to be recovered until after the round. I want the pound of flesh, not because I want anyone to lose a disc, but because I want them to think about it. It's all in the head. Chess is fun too.

Good point. Risk vs reward is one of the key ingredients that makes disc golf an interesting sport for me. I would like to keep it as part of the game whenever possible, but not at the expense of having a bad hole design.

Aside question. Is it permissible for Spotters designated by the TD to assist in stopping or retrieving errant throws going OB or into a lake?

Aside question. Is it permissible for Spotters designated by the TD to assist in stopping or retrieving errant throws going OB or into a lake?
retrieving, sure. stopping? I wouldn't do it unless it had hit ground and was rolling OB, say down a hill away from IB.

a spotter is a convenience, though, not a right. It's still up to the card, more specifically the thrower, to follow a disc's flight. The spotter is to help speed up play, ONLY.

Good point. Risk vs reward is one of the key ingredients that makes disc golf an interesting sport for me. I would like to keep it as part of the game whenever possible, but not at the expense of having a bad hole design.Risk and reward decisions are a part of all sports, that’s the nature of games. Do I throw the splitter or fastball? Do I fake the handoff, rollout and throw the pass in the corner of the end zone?

Unfortunately losing discs is part of the game. But I believe as we are to maintain a high standard of etiquette and courtesy we should also encourage good ole sportsmanship into the game. I think the fact a player will receive a penalty for going OB and having to re-throw is the right level of consequence for making an errant throw of such. Assisting players from losing a disc, whether it is a spotter, volunteer, caddy, or another player is good sportsmanship, wouldn’t you agree?

The fact that this scenario has come up several times playing in PDGA events this year still begs me to question, what is the right thing to do when a player asks for assistance? By most of the answers here, I should tell the player I can’t do it, but the RC says I can.

Assisting players from losing a disc, whether it is a spotter, volunteer, caddy, or another player is good sportsmanship, wouldn�t you agree?

If the good sportsmanship cannot be universally applied, no I do not agree.

The fact that this scenario has come up several times playing in PDGA events this year still begs me to question, what is the right thing to do when a player asks for assistance? By most of the answers here, I should tell the player I can�t do it, but the RC says I can.

You can be guided by your conscience but mine tells me not to give a potentially unfair advantage to any player.

--Mike

You can be guided by your conscience but mine tells me not to give a potentially unfair advantage to any player. --Mike My conscience tells me to abide by the rules in accordance with the interpretation of the RC.

Unfair advantage - Would it be unfair for a player to roll up with 10 caddies carrying 10 of every disc. How about all these caddies also aid in disc retrieval from the water for the one player and not the others. Would it be unfair to have a PRO player caddy for an AM player? Would it be unfair if I gave a player one of my discs after he lost it, but then when another player loses a disc, I just say sorry? I think the idea of mentioning unfair play in this discussion is misguided when it comes to assisting a player from losing a disc.

All your examples are within the rules so no unfair advantage is possible. We are all free to bring as many caddies as we desire & give away discs as we see fit.

This discussion is TOTALLY about arbitrarily changing a rule based on the whim of a group of players. That is unfair. If you can't understand that, I guess we are done.

If another person purposely stops your disc, you may elect to rethrow without a penalty if you don't like where it ends up. With that in the rule book, I don't see how you can ask someone to stop your disc if it is going to a bad spot.

This discussion is TOTALLY about arbitrarily changing a rule based on the whim of a group of players. That is unfair. If you can't understand that, I guess we are done. The purpose of the discussion is to gain an understanding of the rules and how to apply the correct interpretation of those rules. Suffice to say, the RC would allow this action to be permissible. I do agree (stated several times) that it does change the risk factor, however a player is still penalized by the play of his actions.

I think that is why the RC sides to the spirit of the rules and not the harsh interpretation of the rules as some suggest. If the RC came back and undeniably said without a shred of doubt that in no way you could help stop a player’s disc going OB, then I would stand by that decision. But here we are in Catch22. Who has the biggest say in this matter, us forum bloggers or the RC?

Related to this topic is whether players should have the right to move any objects in an OB area if they appeared during the round. This came up at Worlds where Feldberg's drive on Hole 11 (Cliff Drive) might have stalled back inbounds if the vehicle wasn't parked on the road at that point. It's hard to say whether the vehicle was there before the round started or not. But using "benefit of the doubt to the player," in theory, the rules indicate the player can ask that any vehicles be moved regardless whether inbounds or OB if it appeared during the round.

If that vehicle can't be moved, the rules do not provide any options for the player in the event it gets involved in the throw. It seems to me that the rules need to specify whether the object to be moved is IB or OB. I don't think players should have the right to move anything in an OB area regardless whether it appeared during the round. I'm not sure what you do about items inbounds that should be moved but can't because the vehicle owner isn't around. Perhaps if the vehicle is struck, it could be like intentional interference and the player gets to mark where it lands or rethrow?

And this gets around to the topic at hand which is that I would see no problem if the person "saving" a player's shot from being lost OB does not contact it until the disc is in the OB area. This is problematic if it's rolling off the cliff unless the cliff line is marked to allow someone to stand OB. But I disagree with the RC ruling that an agreement can be made for a player to accept an OB penalty and have someone save their disc UNLESS this suggested clarification, where the contact occurs in the OB area, gets approved.

One last try--

Patrick, you keep arguing points I have not made. I agree we should all be sweethearts and stop our fellow player's disc from dropping into oblivion.

Please address the point whereby the RC's ruling allows one group to permit sweetheartedness and another can deny it.

Thanks.

One last try--

Patrick, you keep arguing points I have not made. I agree we should all be sweethearts and stop our fellow player's disc from dropping into oblivion.

Please address the point whereby the RC's ruling allows one group to permit sweetheartedness and another can deny it.

Thanks.

Pefectly legal: I let someone in my group borrow a disc he lost (sweet heartedness)
Pefectly legal: The guy in the group behind me tells the person in his group no (sweetheartedness denied)

I could fill this page with things I could do to help people on my card that would also be perfectly legal for the guy on the next card to deny.
So the argument that it is unfair to allow it based on the fact that some groups would agree and others would not doesn't hold water.
The only point that I've seen that has merit is argueing that the risk of losing equipment is and should be part of the game, and frankly I disagree. Sponsored pros and people with larger bank account already have an advatage in their access to plastic, more molds back ups etc. Why is it not a good idea to make it so those players that are struggling to afford a decent selection of discs are less likely to lose one? In terms of score the player is actually accepting a disadvantage by effectively make the OB area bigger.

One last try--

Patrick, you keep arguing points I have not made. I agree we should all be sweethearts and stop our fellow player's disc from dropping into oblivion.

Please address the point whereby the RC's ruling allows one group to permit sweetheartedness and another can deny it.

Thanks.

From the RC ruling:
"As long as the group agrees, it seems reasonable to overlook 803.07.C"

If it involves a group decision, one group can be nice, and the next not.

And this gets around to the topic at hand which is that I would see no problem if the person "saving" a player's shot from being lost OB does not contact it until the disc is in the OB area. This is problematic if it's rolling off the cliff unless the cliff line is marked to allow someone to stand OB. But I disagree with the RC ruling that an agreement can be made for a player to accept an OB penalty and have someone save their disc UNLESS this suggested clarification, where the contact occurs in the OB area, gets approved. But what about OB water? If the disc is clearly rolling towards the water, and a players ask for somone to stop the disc from going into the water, do you just say nay?

Propose that as long as the contact with the disc is made on the OB side of the plane after the disc has broken the OB plane, then it would be OK to catch it. The person could be standing IB and simply reaching their arm into OB to backstop and grab the disc or fish it out before the group reaches the area.

From the RC ruling:
"As long as the group agrees, it seems reasonable to overlook 803.07.C"

If it involves a group decision, one group can be nice, and the next not.

And this seems right to you?

All the examples of acts of kindness given are individual decisions to act or not. This one involves group concensus.

How would you feel if, after the round, you learned another group allowed the rule to be disregarded but your group refused to let you make the same play?

Am I the only one who sees this as unfair?

Rules application in this sport can be "unfair" actually more like "inconsistent" by its very nature being mostly self officiated. Even as a marshal, the general approach is to let the group make calls and only step in as needed to break ties or confirm rules. As pointed out, there are all sorts of places where playing in a different group or with specific players might change the outcome if certain situations occur during the round.

"There's nothing in the rules that specifically provides for that. As long as the group agrees, it seems reasonable to overlook 803.07.C in the interest of avoiding losing a disc. If there's any doubt about whether you trust the spotter to make the right call, then you probably shouldn't do it."


It seems reasonable to overlook rules. For real? Man I'm really disappointed with the PDGA lately. It seems like it keeps getting worse.

You could always use 801.01 E. Littering is a courtesy violation.

If you let the disc go OB in water or a Cliff it could be considered Littering as plastic or rubber is not naturally occurring in most places and cases.

Unfortunately, that is not the definition of litter or littering. Litter is rubbish, material discarded by its owner, intended to be trash and never retrieved. A competitively thrown golf disc is not intended to be discarded and its owner most likely wants it back.

The only point that I've seen that has merit is argueing that the risk of losing equipment is and should be part of the game, and frankly I disagree. Sponsored pros and people with larger bank account already have an advatage in their access to plastic, more molds back ups etc. Why is it not a good idea to make it so those players that are struggling to afford a decent selection of discs are less likely to lose one? In terms of score the player is actually accepting a disadvantage by effectively make the OB area bigger.

The potential to lose discs always exists whether it be under leaves, up in a tree, within the schule or in the water. I think your example actually highlights why discs should not be stopped by another player. If you are so concerned about potentially losing one of your few discs, then you are not going to run that putt that might get lost in the water or over the cliff. Instead you are going to take the safe route and lay up.

No offense, but if someone is struggling to purchase discs, I would suggest that PDGA-sanctioned play should be low on their priority list.

I agree with Rhett's assessment of this ruling. It greatly changes the mental aspect of how one would approach a given shot by eliminating the ramifications of losing a disc. I don't think stopping another player's disc should be allowed - if you don't want your disc to go to a specific location, then don't throw it there.

I agree as well. The RC got this one wrong. They of all groups should know that you cannot change the rules by group consensus.

And this seems right to you?

All the examples of acts of kindness given are individual decisions to act or not. This one involves group concensus.

How would you feel if, after the round, you learned another group allowed the rule to be disregarded but your group refused to let you make the same play?

Am I the only one who sees this as unfair?

My post did not imply anything about my feelings on the subject, merely posting the fact that leaving it up to group agreement means it will be unequally allowed.

It is not the only situation in the rules where group dynamics makes the game more difficult for one player as compared to another.

It is not the only situation in the rules where group dynamics makes the game more difficult for one player as compared to another.

Could you give me an example?

This is the only circumstance I can think of where group dynamics control changing a written rule. I know the group is assigned tasks like determining where a disc crossed OB, making OB determination, etc but those tasks do not affect other groups. In most cases I don't even know (or care) about them and I trust them not to give gross advantages to one player.

But this new ruling allows two completely different outcomes from two identical situations, each based on the group's leanings.

Let take a closer look at 803.07 Interference and try to come to some understanding why the RC ruled this way rather than simply disagreeing with the ruling. Here is my take on the ruling:
803.07A. A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected or was caught and moved shall be marked as close as possible to the point of contact, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.
Okay, so it makes sense with the group consensus that the intentional stopping of the disc will be marked at a close proximity the disc was to cross the OB line.

803.07A. Alternatively, for intentional interference only, the thrower has the option of taking a re-throw.

As long as the thrower requests players to assist in stopping the disc, then the player would give up his option to take a re-throw.

803.07C. Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc, or consciously moves or obscures another player’s thrown disc at rest or a marker disc, other than by the action of a competitively thrown disc or in the process of identification, shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by any two players or an official.

If a player stopped a disc that is headed for OB and will potentially become a lost disc, then the player stopping the disc did NOT ALTER the course of the thrown disc. If the disc is going OB, then the disc will be played from either the point the disc went OB or from the previous lie.

There will always be the underlying factors of intent, reasonability, consent, and judgment when applying rules. There will never be a complete rule book that gives you step-by-step instructions for every possible scenario of how to apply these factors.

It was not the INTENT to change the lie or obstruct the thrown disc. It is REASONABLE that the player will not take a re-throw upon asking someone to stop their disc. The player stopping the disc will not receive an interference penalty upon CONSENT from the thrower to stop the disc. Players use JUDGMENT to determine where the course of the disc was to cross the OB line to mark the new lie.

Even if as some suggest that you should lay up to avoid the risk of overshooting, there is still the potential of your lay-up shot catching an edge and rolling towards OB. So even if the player does evaluate the risk and chooses to play safe, the same result can occur.

Could you give me an example?

This is the only circumstance I can think of where group dynamics control changing a written rule. I know the group is assigned tasks like determining where a disc crossed OB, making OB determination, etc but those tasks do not affect other groups. In most cases I don't even know (or care) about them and I trust them not to give gross advantages to one player.

But this new ruling allows two completely different outcomes from two identical situations, each based on the group's leanings.


Earlier in the year we had different groups playing an OB situation differently. Some groups played regular OB rules for the next shot (Last place IB or previous lie), other groups played the OB by going straight to a non-existant DROP ZONE.

I have been on many cards where stance violations were ignored, and on cards where they were strictly enforced.

Cards where discourteous actions were tolerated, and on cards where they were called.

Cards that looked for much longer than three minutes for a lost disc, and cards that started the clock immediately.

Cards that allow players to chat and move about quietly during play, and cards that require absolute silence and stillness during play.

There are a lot of things that do not directly involve penalty strokes that can raise a player's score.

It seems reasonable to overlook rules. For real? Man I'm really disappointed with the PDGA lately. It seems like it keeps getting worse.

One doesn't have to view it as "overlooking" rules, just applying them in their proper context. The rule, as written, makes perfect sense for what it was intended to acomplish; it makes less sense in the original poster's example.

Discretion in rule application doesn't equal anarchy.

I agree with Rhett's assessment of this ruling. It greatly changes the mental aspect of how one would approach a given shot by eliminating the ramifications of losing a disc. I don't think stopping another player's disc should be allowed - if you don't want your disc to go to a specific location, then don't throw it there. So what if a player chooses to lay up to play safe as you say and the disc catches an edge and the shot still rolls OB? The player chose the less riskier decision to layup, yet they still must lose their disc? As an observer would you feel more inclined to assist if you knew the players intent to layup and then the shot unintentionally rolled OB?

I'm obviously failing to express my point well. I see a difference between your examples, Gary, and this ruling.

I'll end by saying no group I am in will be allowed to disregard the interference rule. If this makes me a bad guy and a poor sport, so be it.

I'll end by saying no group I am in will be allowed to disregard the interference rule. If this makes me a bad guy and a poor sport, so be it. So now your going against the ruling of the RC? If you read up on 803.01D Appeals, you will find your pre-conceived decision will be nullified by either the majority who actually follows the rules, or if there is no majority then the benefit will go to the thrower. You can appeal further if you like all the way up to the TD and then the RC, but we already know where the RC stands on this issue.

"There's nothing in the rules that specifically provides for that. As long as the group agrees, it seems reasonable to overlook 803.07.C in the interest of avoiding losing a disc. If there's any doubt about whether you trust the spotter to make the right call, then you probably shouldn't do it."


It seems reasonable to overlook rules. For real? Man I'm really disappointed with the PDGA lately. It seems like it keeps getting worse.

Why do you think it is unreasonable to overlook a rule under the right circumstance. It seems to me to be foolish to expect to be able to phrase a rule such that it can be applied to the letter in every circumstance.

I think the RC should interpret the intent of the rule and then advise on how or if it should be applied in a given situation.

IMO the intent of the interference rule is to penalize someone for purposely altering the path of a disc in such a way that would affect their subsequent lie. In this case the disc is OB if the backstopper touches it and is OB if he doesn't no call.

Before anyone starts ranting about selectively applying rules show me one proffesional sport where this isn't done when calling the infraction is pointless. (offensive holding in football if applied by the letter of the ruling would be called on every single play. Really read he rule and watch a game.)

If th only reason you can come up with for cxalling an infraction is because it's what the rule says then maybe you should lighten up and play disc golf instead of lawyer golf.

McThumber
I see your point and I understand your frustration, but the RC has given their ruling or this specific situation. To go against that for the same situation is more a direct violation of the rules than to apply a general rule as written in the book when a more precise ruling has been given. I don't make the rules, and I certainly don't agree with all of them, but I do try to play by and enforce them.

So I'm taking a shot at the basket that is on the edge of a body of water that my disc might get lost in if I run for the chains and I miss.

If I don't have someone to catch my disc and prevent it from going in the water, I am more likely to just lay up and take an extra stroke rather than loose one of my discs that I need for the tournament.

The ruling as given by the RC will give uneven play. There will be advantages to groups depending on the make up of the personality of the group. A group that says "Yes, we will catch your disc and keep it from being lost" is given an advantage of "going for it" without the possible loss of a disc that other groups will encounter due to the randomness of the people making up the group.

How could anyone think this is a fair ruling? Arbitrary advantages like this are decidedly unfair since they are not applied evenly to all players. It's like adding 3 strokes to score because I have green eyes.

Why would it be any less fair than the unwritten code among some players to second foot faults called by their compatriots when they shank a drive? The only thing the RC confirmed in this case is simply another area of the rules among several where the group can make the call.

So what if a player chooses to lay up to play safe as you say and the disc catches an edge and the shot still rolls OB? The player chose the less riskier decision to layup, yet they still must lose their disc? As an observer would you feel more inclined to assist if you knew the players intent to layup and then the shot unintentionally rolled OB?

I would consider that a case of misfortune. I don't see it any differently than two players that both griplock their drive where one has the fortune of passing through the trees only to hyzer back into the fairway while the other clips a branch and kicks into the deep shule to never be recovered.

True story: Friend of mine shanks his drive into the trees and somehow passes through everything and hits a tree around the basket for an ace. I groove one down the fairway, hit a tree right by the basket and kick into a nasty bush without a putt for deuce! Fortune/Misfortune, Lucky/Unlucky - call it what you will but it is a component to disc golf - our goal is to minimize that component as best as possible with our skills and decisions.

If the player was clearly laying up, I would recognize that as a potentially wise decision and feel bad for them that their disc caught the root right in front of the basket and rolled OB into the deep water. However, I would not feel inclined to stop their disc nor would I expect or want them to stop mine.

In my opinion, this is a course design issue with some folks. Why would they possibly put the basket so close to water so that you could lose your disc? Because that is an element of challenge and thrill to the sport of disc golf.

Sorry I don't find the chance of losing discs in deep water part of the thrill of disc golf.

"Let me tell you about this great sport of disc golf... get this... you could lose your favorite disc with one bad roll. It's great!"

Sorry I don't find the chance of losing discs in deep water part of the thrill of disc golf.

"Let me tell you about this great sport of disc golf... get this... you could lose your favorite disc with one bad roll. It's great!"

The thrill certainly doesn't come from the lost disc, for me it comes from the potential of losing a disc and having things go the way you envisioned your shot. The misfortune of a bad roll is a possibility whether you risk losing a disc or not.

If you are laying up, avoid the root (or rock, or whatever). Learn to make better lay ups.

One doesn't have to view it as "overlooking" rules, just applying them in their proper context. The rule, as written, makes perfect sense for what it was intended to acomplish; it makes less sense in the original poster's example.

Discretion in rule application doesn't equal anarchy.

That is not my perspective. That is the official PDGA stance. From the RC- "It seems reasonable to overlook rule 803.07..."

I'm curious as to how often this situation may occur?

Presumably it happens only on putts, up to a distance someone might choose to "go for it". My need for a backstop would be on drives, but that has it's own logistical difficulties.

Then it must be for putts with water close enough to that a "go for it" putt that misses has a reasonable chance of going in the water. Not just any water---water in which a lost disc is a significant risk. Most places I've seen with baskets near water or on hills above water, a disc putt might go OB but not very far OB, with the water shallow or clear or both, and retrieval of the disc quite likely. So we're talking about water in which 2', or even 10', in is a lost disc. Not unheard of, but pretty rare.

So it must be a putt where the OB and stroke penalty don't worry the player enough to not "go for it", just the chance of losing the disc. Otherwise, the backstop is a matter of convenience. "I know if I blow this putt I'll take the OB stroke---I just don't want to bother fishing the disc out of the water."

Without delving into what the rulebook should say or does say, isn't this a bit of a tempest in a teapot?

On the other hand....

Do we want to get to where setting up people as backstops for water holes is a regular feature of our game. And---if legal---what if I ask if someone would mind playing goalie by the lake while I putt, and no one in the group is willing? Should I be offended? Is there a slippery slope here?

Why do you think it is unreasonable to overlook a rule under the right circumstance. It seems to me to be foolish to expect to be able to phrase a rule such that it can be applied to the letter in every circumstance.

I think the RC should interpret the intent of the rule and then advise on how or if it should be applied in a given situation.

IMO the intent of the interference rule is to penalize someone for purposely altering the path of a disc in such a way that would affect their subsequent lie. In this case the disc is OB if the backstopper touches it and is OB if he doesn't no call.

PhattD, there is no mention of "intent" in the rule. The wording is "...consciously alters the course of a thrown disc...". How is that not black and white? A player is not allowed to touch a moving disc.

Deciding whether or not the potential negative effect of risking a lost "money disc" is greater than the potential positive effect of making the risky shot with your "money disc" is inherent in our game. Losing a disc WILL affect the rest of the player's round, and the player's score!

Think about this- Whether or not a player loses a disc may not affect the location of the subsequent lie, but it will definitely affect the next throw from the subsequent lie, especially if the player lost his/her putter. If a lost putter is not the case, the mental trauma and anguish will become a factor. On top of that, not having that lost disc later in the round could (and almost all of time WILL) affect a player's total score for that round.

These are facts, and are reasons why no player should be allowed to consciously alter the course of any thrown disc.

The only thing the RC confirmed in this case is simply another area of the rules among several where the group can make the call.


CHUCK!

That is incorrect. The RC "confirmed" nothing with this ruling. The RC MADE A DESCISION to give players an option to OVERLOOK A RULE in order to not lose a disc. Read the rule! What the RC did is blur a clear line between black and white. (insert complexion joke here)

ARRRGGHHHH!!!! Frustrating that the PDGA does not uphold their own rules.

Regarding the issue of group decision -- in a tournament which includes a hole where a thrower might want a backstop, request that the TD make a ruling during the player's meeting. "Backstops allowed on hole 13, but they must stand within 12 inches of the OB line."

McThumber
I see your point and I understand your frustration, but the RC has given their ruling or this specific situation. To go against that for the same situation is more a direct violation of the rules than to apply a general rule as written in the book when a more precise ruling has been given. I don't make the rules, and I certainly don't agree with all of them, but I do try to play by and enforce them.

But as you yourself quoted-

"From the RC ruling: "As long as the group agrees, it seems reasonable to overlook 803.07.C",

it requires group agreement. It does not say "a majority" so it must be unanimous. If I am part of the group, I will not agree.

That is the thrust of my argument with this ruling--- a request to circumvent a rule that requires group agreement cannot be fairly applied.

I'm curious as to how often this situation may occur?

Presumably it happens only on putts, up to a distance someone might choose to "go for it". My need for a backstop would be on drives, but that has it's own logistical difficulties.

Then it must be for putts with water close enough to that a "go for it" putt that misses has a reasonable chance of going in the water. Not just any water---water in which a lost disc is a significant risk. Most places I've seen with baskets near water or on hills above water, a disc putt might go OB but not very far OB, with the water shallow or clear or both, and retrieval of the disc quite likely. So we're talking about water in which 2', or even 10', in is a lost disc. Not unheard of, but pretty rare.


David, not to be rude, but the fact that you do not play on courses where this may happen frequently has no bearing in this discussion. At Victory Park in Albion, MI, this situation could happen on 6 out of 18 holes, and is actually likely to happen on 3 holes. There is a Ctier this weekend at Riverbends Park in Shelby, MI where this is likely to happen on 4 holes, off the top of my head. If my competitors get into this situation and don't want to lose their putters, they will be laying up, and leaving strokes out there. Strokes=$$$.


So it must be a putt where the OB and stroke penalty don't worry the player enough to not "go for it", just the chance of losing the disc. Otherwise, the backstop is a matter of convenience. "I know if I blow this putt I'll take the OB stroke---I just don't want to bother fishing the disc out of the water."


Not the case. See above.



Without delving into what the rulebook should say or does say, isn't this a bit of a tempest in a teapot?


No.


On the other hand....

Do we want to get to where setting up people as backstops for water holes is a regular feature of our game. And---if legal---what if I ask if someone would mind playing goalie by the lake while I putt, and no one in the group is willing? Should I be offended? Is there a slippery slope here?

Exactly. Keep it black and white. No player should be allowed to consciously alter the course of a thrown disc.

Regarding the issue of group decision -- in a tournament which includes a hole where a thrower might want a backstop, request that the TD make a ruling during the player's meeting. "Backstops allowed on hole 13, but they must stand within 12 inches of the OB line."

Still a gray area and blurry line. Backstops would be allowed, but there is no way to require a player to act as backstop. That means inconsistency in the way a hole (and the course) is played by different groups, and by different players within the same group.

That is the thrust of my argument with this ruling--- a request to circumvent a rule that requires group agreement cannot be fairly applied.

I didn't even consider that. Geez. Whoever made that decision on behalf of the RC was not thinking clearly. It needs to be fixed/addressed.

David, not to be rude, but the fact that you do not play on courses where this may happen frequently has no bearing in this discussion. At Victory Park in Albion, MI, this situation could happen on 6 out of 18 holes, and is actually likely to happen on 3 holes. There is a Ctier this weekend at Riverbends Park in Shelby, MI where this is likely to happen on 4 holes, off the top of my head. If my competitors get into this situation and don't want to lose their putters, they will be laying up, and leaving strokes out there. Strokes=$$$.


Doesn't strike me as rude in the least.

I'm asking whether this comes up enough to sweat over it. Maybe the answer is "Yes." I've played 104 courses in 24 states---a lot less experience than many people here, but I'm not isolated to a few courses, either---and seen very few places where a putter might be lost. A lot where it can go in water, few where it might be lost. But if among the 3,000 courses I haven't played there are some where it's a serious threat, that's different.

I understand your arguments about the "supposed" freedom that comes with not losing a disc, and I think they have merit, but the whole black/white/no gray is extremely lacking. As an example already given on this thread: What if someone intentionally knocks a disc from striking a baby, or another player? Surely, you see some gray there?

PhattD, there is no mention of "intent" in the rule. The wording is "...consciously alters the course of a thrown disc...". How is that not black and white? A player is not allowed to touch a moving disc. Does everything need to be spelled out in the rulebook? Even the letter of the law punishes based on intent and not the direct action. I think we can look beyond the written words in a book and try to gain an understanding of the purpose and INTENT of the rules. The rule mentions, “alters the course”. The course of the disc is going OB, no doubt about it. I don't think stopping a disc going OB is altering the course of the disc.

Think about this- Whether or not a player loses a disc may not affect the location of the subsequent lie, but it will definitely affect the next throw from the subsequent lie, especially if the player lost his/her putter. If a lost putter is not the case, the mental trauma and anguish will become a factor. On top of that, not having that lost disc later in the round could (and almost all of time WILL) affect a player's total score for that round. I don't think the “unique” aspect of disc golf should be about losing discs. Having players tactlessly attempt to take advantage of players and watch them melt down as they lose their playing equipment is not good sportsmanship. This goes against courtesy and etiquette in the rule book. It doesn't sound like great sportsmanship to me if a player would rather win over their opponents this way than by their own merits.

"From the RC ruling: "As long as the group agrees, it seems reasonable to overlook 803.07.C", it requires group agreement. It does not say "a majority" so it must be unanimous. If I am part of the group, I will not agree. That is the thrust of my argument with this ruling--- a request to circumvent a rule that requires group agreement cannot be fairly applied. The rule book specifies what to do when a group can’t agree. Read up on 803.01D Appeals and you will find the answer.

I understand your arguments about the "supposed" freedom that comes with not losing a disc, and I think they have merit, but the whole black/white/no gray is extremely lacking. As an example already given on this thread: What if someone intentionally knocks a disc from striking a baby, or another player? Surely, you see some gray there?

If you can react quick enough to block a disc that is traveling at a speed fast enough to injure another player in a tournament, I commend you. I don't think I could do that.

Baby- Cmon. That falls under common sense. Don't throw when babies are around. Go talk to the parent who is watching them and explain to them that the baby is in the way. If no parent present, call CPS.

I'm talking about the specific ruling by the RC that allows players to overlook 803.07 for the purpose of creating a backstop so that a player doesn't lose a disc.

Do you need everything spelled out to you in a rulebook? Even the letter of the law punishes based on intent and not the direct action. You should really try to expand your thinking beyond the written words in a book and try to gain an understanding of the purpose and INTENT of the rules. It is one thing to quote rule books and seem intelligent, it�s another to apply the knowledge you learned and use proper judgment accordingly.

Patrick, yes. I do need rules spelled out for me in a rulebook. It makes playing the game easier. Less arguments and disagreements and such.

I try to make it a point not to assume anything. I try to take the rules at face value and not imply any extra wording. That also makes playing the game easier.


Now if you want to play word games then go back to the part you quoted, �alters the course�. The course of the disc is going OB, no doubt about it. So stopping a disc going OB is not altering the course of the disc. Is that black and white for you?


You may ASSUME that the disc was going to go OB before it was stopped. You are telling me that stopping a disc from going OB is not considered altering the course of that disc. That statement is asinine. In your example, the course of the disc has been altered by another player.

Rules address this issue. Recently, the RC ruled that it is acceptable to overlook this rule. On top of that, the RC has not made a public statement that the rules have been changed, or that it is acceptable to overlook this certain rule in certain situations. I have a problem with that.


Sounds like great sportsmanship to me as you would rather win over your opponents this way than by your own merits.


Do not assume anything about me, my game, or my opinions. This assumption that you made here offends me.

If you can react quick enough to block a disc that is traveling at a speed fast enough to injure another player in a tournament, I commend you. I don't think I could do that.

Baby- Cmon. That falls under common sense. Don't throw when babies are around. Go talk to the parent who is watching them and explain to them that the baby is in the way. If no parent present, call CPS.

I'm talking about the specific ruling by the RC that allows players to overlook 803.07 for the purpose of creating a backstop so that a player doesn't lose a disc.

I am pretty quick, so yes, I can deflect discs I see coming.

I realize the example is not what the RC was ruling on, but my point, is: all rules, or this rule specifically, are not black and white, they have context. The baby example is the clearest example. As you say "cmon. That falls under common sense," although it doesn't fall under a rigid reading of the rule. I'm sure others view saving someone's disc from death as "common sense" also.

All I am saying is that the rules committee understanding and stating that a rule might be "overlooked" in a certain context is hardly heresy.

One hole comes to mind.

I wonder how many backstops we will see on hole 17 in Rock Hill in October.

You may ASSUME that the disc was going to go OB before it was stopped. You are telling me that stopping a disc from going OB is not considered altering the course of that disc. That statement is asinine. In your example, the course of the disc has been altered by another player. Keyword, “altering”. Stopping yes, altering no. Again, look at the underlying INTENT of the rule. The player is not changing or altering the path of the disc. If the course of the disc is undisputedly heading OB, then stopping the disc going OB is not altering the course, it is going OB, same result.

hopefully, rules discussion is not your strong suit

801.01 courtesy
A. players should not throw until they are certain that the
thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure
anyone present.

So if someone badly shanks a shot, and hits someone, is that a courtesy violation? I mean, they had to "know" that a bad shank might "potentially" injure someone.

If they ask for a group decision on whether they could potentially injure someone, and get a "go-ahead" to throw, do they still get a courtesy warning? If the TD or the group rules "no" on the courtesy violation, are they "overlooking" the rules?

I can see it now: a griplock sends one 45 degrees off line. A rulesbreaker sees it flying straight at the old lady with a walker. He knocks it down. Arguments break out in both groups. The hero recieves two strokes for his efforts; the shanker is warned. Rules zealots marvel at their wisdom.

I did not do my research. It does not fall under common sense. It is in the rules: No throwing discs at babies.

I don't think I can make my point any more clear. The RC has given 1 player permission, privately, for any group that he plays in to overlook rule 803.07.C in order to prevent him from losing a disc. I have a problem with that.



GNDuke,

Yes. #17 at Winthrop. I wonder how many groups will agree to have backstops. I wonder how many will not. I will then wonder why the course is being played differently by different groups.

potentially obviously. there are no rules, only official suggested guidelines for play. are you having trouble following along, james?

hopefully, rules discussion is not your strong suit

801.01 courtesy
A. players should not throw until they are certain that the
thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure
anyone present. I can agree that at the initial throw this rule clearly comes into effect, no doubt about it and the point has been made previously in the discussion and I concur. However, part of the question up for debate is do you stop an errant throw heading towards the baby carriage and are assessed penalty strokes for the action.

potentially obviously. there are no rules, only official suggested guidelines for play. are you having trouble following along, james?

No, I'm not because I understand all rules have context. Those who don't, and are intelectually honest about their belief, should be pulling their hair out.

They will be freaking out on the first hole, unable to solve the paradox created by their strict adherence to a rule directing them to not "potentially" injure someone and that pesky rule telling them that their time is winding down.

btw, DPA, nothing about my admittedly unlikely example assumes someone is throwing at the baby; maybe they simply lack courtesy, maybe accidents happen, maybe things happen that mere ordinary rules can't foresee.

What is the big deal about helping someone from losing their playing equipment? The player is penalized fairly and has to re-throw the shot. Does one player really need that extra advantage from a player's loss for them to succeed at this game? When you see the TOP pros in our sport earn less than $20,000 in total purse prizes (as of 8/20/09), it begs to question on how harshly we need to interpret the rules. I think the spirit of the rules should be used as guidelines.

So far it seems the spirit of some players is to gain advantage over an opponent at any cost to help increase the chances of winning. I think this game is more about winning. Camaraderie with your fellow players is what I find to be so essential in this sport and you can't put a price on that. Friend or foe, I'll stop the disc from going OB upon request. It also serves in the best interest of the field as it will save time by not to having to go search for the lost disc and help with speed of play (as the RC mentioned).

Taking the low road on this matter and objecting to the RC interpretation could offend me, but I practice self control and understand that we can agree to disagree.

Patrick, you would be well advised to show some respect. You are arguing with a professional golfer and certified official with many years of tournament experience. Disagree all you want. Present your argument. But please do so respectfully.

Thanks.

So if someone badly shanks a shot, and hits someone, is that a courtesy violation? I mean, they had to "know" that a bad shank might "potentially" injure someone.

If they ask for a group decision on whether they could potentially injure someone, and get a "go-ahead" to throw, do they still get a courtesy warning? If the TD or the group rules "no" on the courtesy violation, are they "overlooking" the rules?

I can see it now: a griplock sends one 45 degrees off line. A rulesbreaker sees it flying straight at the old lady with a walker. He knocks it down. Arguments break out in both groups. The hero recieves two strokes for his efforts; the shanker is warned. Rules zealots marvel at their wisdom.

Now, James, don't be dissin' us Rules Zealots, and please do not think that RZs do not apply common sense to the game. Re: knocking a disc down before it hits/hurts a spectator - the Rules make no exception for someone to do this, so it is a technical violation to do so, but "I pity the fool" that would actually call a violation on someone for preventing injury to another. Imagine the reputation that person would get.

I, as DGRZ001, would _not_ call an interference violation for someone knocking down a thrown disc to protect another person.

Lots of disagreement about this RC interpretation.

Don't lose sight of the fact that this means nothing and changes nothing.
Anyone remember the Feldberg kneeling on a towel issue at 2008 Memorial?

The outcome was that a Rules Q&A, or in this case a RC reply to an email, is an undated, uncommunicated interpretation of a rule which is not to be confused with a rules update and doesn't change the PDGA Rules or Competition manual.

So don't get upset about this since it is meaningless for tournament play.

Patrick, you would be well advised to show some respect. You are arguing with a professional golfer and certified official with many years of tournament experience. Disagree all you want. Present your argument. But please do so respectfully. Thanks. You are right, sometimes we get carried away here. Don't mean to offend anyone. Thank you for keeping me in line.

err, computer error.

Bottom line when it comes down to it, there is only one disc in my bag that would hurt me if I lost it and that would be my main putter. All my other discs I have backups and replacements for. I do have extra putters, but not the one I have beaten in over the last year. If the RC came back and said no way, you lose your disc too bad, then I would accept the call and this discussion would be mute a good 70+ posts ago.

Since I have been in this situation myself only once, then I don't really see it as a major issue for me. If I have to throw my backup putter to play safer, so be it. I was more interested in helping people from losing their discs and not gaining advantage over players for losing their equipment. Heck, I even climb trees for my opponents if they need help. Not everyone can physically climb trees. Do you also try to take advantage over an opponent if they are physically unable to get their disc out of a tree and so you just say sorry, that's your problem?

It seems that this would be perfectly legal according to the rules. A player goes to putt and his disc rolls towards a lake. He runs after it and stops it from going OB in the water. Player takes a two stroke penalty for interference, and shoots from the point of interference, while keeping his disc. May not be the best action, but could prevent you from losing a disc.

PhattD, there is no mention of "intent" in the rule. The wording is "...consciously alters the course of a thrown disc...". How is that not black and white? A player is not allowed to touch a moving disc.

Deciding whether or not the potential negative effect of risking a lost "money disc" is greater than the potential positive effect of making the risky shot with your "money disc" is inherent in our game. Losing a disc WILL affect the rest of the player's round, and the player's score!

Think about this- Whether or not a player loses a disc may not affect the location of the subsequent lie, but it will definitely affect the next throw from the subsequent lie, especially if the player lost his/her putter. If a lost putter is not the case, the mental trauma and anguish will become a factor. On top of that, not having that lost disc later in the round could (and almost all of time WILL) affect a player's total score for that round.

These are facts, and are reasons why no player should be allowed to consciously alter the course of any thrown disc.


Where did I say Intent was mentioned in the rule?

It comes down to do you think that the risk of losing equipment during around should be part of the game or not.

If you do then it makes sense to apply the interference rule and not allow the backstop.

If you do not then it makes no sense to apply the rule disallowing the back stop.

If there was no rule book yet and you were writing one and somebody asked "hey is this ok?" What would you say? and why.

Simple answer:

If the OB has been passed already, fine. stop it. If people want to stand in the edge a pond or wherever, fine.

If there isn't anyone who wants to help in that way, tough.

If it's not a "safe" shot, you shouldn't have thrown there to begin with.

Simple rule for any OB, obstacle, unplayable lie, whatever.

How about things get simplified...if you can't play it from where it landed, count that "bad lie" and rethrow from the last lie. Including OB. Existing rules about identifying the last lie (as close as possible as determined by the group, or whatever) apply.

As do any late fees and minimum payment requirements. Offer expires 10/32/2542 Void where prohibited.

Reading this discussion has been an interesting contrast in positions. I happen to fall in the category of those who believe that the risk of losing your putter (even your favorite one) is part of the game. As someone who has done so, I do appreciate the arguement on the other side. But I disagree with the interpretation of the RC on this, and, like McThumber, I would not agree to do so.

I look at this similarly to the thought, for those who back into the bushes, that you are guaranteed a lie, but you are not guaranteed to have good lie or even a shot at the hole.