stevev
Feb 25 2010, 02:23 AM
Say a disc comes to rest about 20 inches away from a tree trunk on the basket side of the tree. (The tree is behind the player.) The disc is about 25 feet away from the basket. The player has plenty of room to place one foot directly behind the disc and the other foot off to the side for a straddle putt. However, the player wants to use a "standard" or "straight line" stance and places his back foot against the trunk (about 10 inches above ground level) of the tree to push off of just ever so slightly during the putt. I say that as long as his foot is NOT touching the tree trunk when the disc is released for the putt, then it is a legal putt. If it is touching the trunk at release then an illigal putt was made. Can I get a ruling please?

Second question. Can a player call their shot a provisional shot on the first throw they make from any lie? Or, is the provisional always the second throw from a lie? Can I get a second ruling please?

august
Feb 25 2010, 08:27 AM
As long as the player has a supporting point in contact with the playing surface, placing another supporting point on a tree behind the lie does not violate the rule.

Provisional throws are allowed in order to save time and appeal a ruling, but there are other conditions to be met in the rule (see 803.01C). In essence, both throws are provisional until one is chosen. Calling the first one a provisional does not seem to violate the rule or have any consequence.

davei
Feb 25 2010, 08:28 AM
Say a disc comes to rest about 20 inches away from a tree trunk on the basket side of the tree. (The tree is behind the player.) The disc is about 25 feet away from the basket. The player has plenty of room to place one foot directly behind the disc and the other foot off to the side for a straddle putt. However, the player wants to use a "standard" or "straight line" stance and places his back foot against the trunk (about 10 inches above ground level) of the tree to push off of just ever so slightly during the putt. I say that as long as his foot is NOT touching the tree trunk when the disc is released for the putt, then it is a legal putt. If it is touching the trunk at release then an illigal putt was made. Can I get a ruling please?

Second question. Can a player call their shot a provisional shot on the first throw they make from any lie? Or, is the provisional always the second throw from a lie? Can I get a second ruling please?

As for the putt: The player can not only push off the tree behind him, he can be touching it or even be receiving support from it. He is only restricted from touching objects in front of his lie.

A provisional arises when it's unclear how to proceed with play such as a disputed ruling. The group has to agree to a provisional. The rule book is available on this site for reference.

cgkdisc
Feb 25 2010, 08:33 AM
For your first question, cite the rule that makes you think the player cannot push off from the tree trunk.

Second, what situation would a player know a provisional should maybe be thrown on the first throw until after the first throw was potentially seen to be a problem such as going OB or lost? Other than those situations, a player would normally be playing a provisional from a different lie than the other throw (such as a "going OB" dispute) so the order wouldn't matter.

august
Feb 25 2010, 09:49 AM
The group has to agree to a provisional.

Only for a "time saving" provisional described in 803.01C(1). 803.01C(2) provides for a provisional when the player wants to appeal the decision of the group or an official, i.e., the player disagrees with the ruling of the group or official. Under that scenario, group agreement is not required.

veganray
Feb 25 2010, 11:20 AM
What if the tree trunk is farther from the target than the lie, but the tree has contiguous branches that are closer to the target than the lie? Does the entire tree then qualify as "any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc", thereby making contact with its trunk at the time of release illegal?

davei
Feb 25 2010, 11:30 AM
What if the tree trunk is farther from the target than the lie, but the tree has contiguous branches that are closer to the target than the lie? Does the entire tree then qualify as "any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc", thereby making contact with its trunk at the time of release illegal?

Interesting and debatable. If it were a sapling tree that moved at all when you stepped on it, it would potentially cause movement to objects closer to the target.

cgkdisc
Feb 25 2010, 11:52 AM
The question would be whether contact was made before or after the throw. I agree with Vegan that the branches over the head beyond the lie is troublesome regarding the legality of contacting the trunk before the throw. But given the example where players have to go into the center of a pine tree to make a throw, one could argue that touching the trunk is simply applying the "least movement" rule 803.04D which, whether right or wrong, is widely interpreted more as "unreasonably excessive movement."

august
Feb 25 2010, 12:37 PM
The language in the rule is "between the lie and the hole" not "closer to the hole than the lie" and in this context "hole" = "target". It all hinges on whether or not the branches above your head radiating from the tree trunk behind you and extending towards the hole/target are considered to be between the lie and the hole. I can see a valid argument for both sides of that. When each side of the debate has validity, it is probably indicative of a rule that should be reviewed for possible revisions in the interest of clarity.

davidsauls
Feb 25 2010, 12:45 PM
The language in the rule is "between the lie and the hole" not "closer to the hole than the lie" and in this context "hole" = "target". It all hinges on whether or not the branches above your head radiating from the tree trunk behind you and extending towards the hole/target are considered to be between the lie and the hole. I can see a valid argument for both sides of that. When each side of the debate has validity, it is probably indicative of a rule that should be reviewed for possible revisions in the interest of clarity.

Even if the branches extend closer to the basket than the lie, the point of contact wouldn't.

I can take a stance standing on a stick, part of which extends in front of my lie. In fact, as I understand it I must, since I can't move the stick.

veganray
Feb 25 2010, 12:45 PM
When each side of the debate has validity, it is probably indicative of a rule that should be reviewed for possible revisions in the interest of clarity.
Just what I was fishing for. (Thanx, Mike.);)

We can add that to the list of a couple of dozen other rules that need the same treatment.

wsfaplau
Feb 25 2010, 12:48 PM
Obviously you can touch the trunk of the tree behind the lie. After all, it is behind the lie.
That is an absurd ruling that since the branches extend closer to the hole the whole tree is untouchable. Using the branch extends closer to the hole so the trunk can't be touched logic must also then mean this.

A hole has a sidewalk running along side of the fairway.
The sidewalk is inbounds.
The sidewalk therefore is an object that goes closer to the hole.
Dave's drive lands on the middle of the sidewalk.

Under the interpretation that you can't touch the tree because it extends closer to the hole how is one supposed to play this shot?
Don't bother with the poor course design nonsense. This is a real world example on hundreds of courses.

Of course you can touch the tree trunk behind the lie.

cgkdisc
Feb 25 2010, 12:53 PM
Of course you can touch the tree trunk behind the lie.
Depends on what "touch" is. If it's a smaller tree regardless whether it has branches in front of your lie or not, you can't touch it to the extent of bending the trunk without violating 803.04D regarding "least movement"

august
Feb 25 2010, 01:03 PM
I can take a stance standing on a stick, part of which extends in front of my lie. In fact, as I understand it I must, since I can't move the stick.

I think this would violate 803.04A(2)

august
Feb 25 2010, 01:07 PM
Obviously you can touch the trunk of the tree behind the lie. After all, it is behind the lie.
That is an absurd ruling that since the branches extend closer to the hole the whole tree is untouchable. Using the branch extends closer to the hole so the trunk can't be touched logic must also then mean this.

A hole has a sidewalk running along side of the fairway.
The sidewalk is inbounds.
The sidewalk therefore is an object that goes closer to the hole.
Dave's drive lands on the middle of the sidewalk.

Under the interpretation that you can't touch the tree because it extends closer to the hole how is one supposed to play this shot?
Don't bother with the poor course design nonsense. This is a real world example on hundreds of courses.

Of course you can touch the tree trunk behind the lie.

I see the sidewalk as more a part of the playing surface than an object. However "object" is not defined in the rule book - "obstacle" is. "Object" should probably be changed to "obstacle" for consistency.

exczar
Feb 25 2010, 01:18 PM
803.05A says you can't hold an object back to make room for a throwing motion, and 803.05B says you can't move, alter, bend, break or hold back any object between the lie and the hole.

One cannot move branches in front of you that are attached to a tree, regardless of where the trunk of the tree is located, or where you hold the branches back. For instance, say a branch is going in front of you diagonally from a tree behind you. You cannot grab ahold of the branch to move it, even if where you grab ahold of the branch is behind your lie.

Likewise, if you have a small tree directly behind you, and it has long branches that form a canopy over you and extend almost to the ground in front of you, you may NOT touch the small tree in such a way to raise those branches higher, because doing so may give you a more clear path to the target.

johnrock
Feb 25 2010, 01:52 PM
Just what I was fishing for. (Thanx, Mike.);)

We can add that to the list of a couple of dozen other rules that need the same treatment.


Is there such a list being compiled?

Who is on the committee to revise the rules?

exczar
Feb 25 2010, 01:56 PM
Who is on the committee to revise the rules?


Umm...*cough*...I believe it is whomever is on the, uh, "Rules Committee"...:D

pterodactyl
Feb 25 2010, 01:59 PM
Q1: You can touch anything behind your lie. Hook your foot around the tree if you want.

Q2: No reason to throw a provisional unless something happened to dictate such. Simple horse sense.

johnrock
Feb 25 2010, 02:44 PM
Umm...*cough*...I believe it is whomever is on the, uh, "Rules Committee"...:D

Gee **cough,cough**, thanks for such a **cough,cough** well thought out response **cough,cough**.

Can you maybe point me in the right direction to find out the members of said committee? I tried to find it on the front page but I guess I'm not looking in the right spot. Sorry if it's inconviencing the masses...

exczar
Feb 25 2010, 02:53 PM
I was just kidding, John, hence the smiley face.'


I believe that Chuck in on the RC.

johnrock
Feb 25 2010, 03:03 PM
No sweat, just trying to find info. Are the members listed anywhere, or do I have to contact pdga HQ and hope they reply? Does anyone know if they have a list going of what to review, are they limited to revise just the most glaring examples of problems, or will it be a major revision in 2011?

august
Feb 25 2010, 03:30 PM
I searched and was not able to readily find a roster of members for any committee.

davidsauls
Feb 25 2010, 03:31 PM
I think this would violate 803.04A(2)

I guess that depends on how you diagram that sentence. Looks to me like "closer" modifies "contact", not "object". You can argue that it modifies "object", of course, but that seems to lead to some bizarre rulings; if it modifies "contact", it makes much more sense.

At least, to me.

exczar
Feb 25 2010, 03:33 PM
No, there is no listing of committee members, but you can send an email message to any committee that is in the pull down menu, by going to "PDGA HQ" then "Contacts" in the main menu above.

cgkdisc
Feb 25 2010, 03:42 PM
I was on the RC in the early 90s but have not been on the Rules Committee since then, just an interested bystander and sometimes advisor. Conrad Damon is the Chairman. Other members I can think of are Dr. Rick, Chappy, Harold Duvall, Shawn Sinclair, Peter Bygde and Jim Garnett. They are underway with working on the update to hopefully become effective at the start of 2011. Send any comments to the RC on the PDGA Contact page.

august
Feb 25 2010, 04:11 PM
I guess that depends on how you diagram that sentence. Looks to me like "closer" modifies "contact", not "object". You can argue that it modifies "object", of course, but that seems to lead to some bizarre rulings; if it modifies "contact", it makes much more sense.

At least, to me.

That's a bit absurd. Shame on your English teacher :)

The sentence describes two prohibitions on supporting point contact. The first is a prohibition against contact with the marker disc. The second is a prohibition against contact with any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc. Additionally, the word "object" is immediately adjacent to "closer". Nonetheless, no matter how you read it, supporting point contact between the lie and the hole is prohibited.

It does seem pointless to prohibit contact with an object that is partially behind and partially in front of a lie, as long as the contact is with the portion behind the lie.

veganray
Feb 25 2010, 04:39 PM
It does seem pointless to prohibit contact with an object that is partially behind and partially in front of a lie, as long as the contact is with the portion behind the lie.

That interpretation would leave open the possibility of a player's supporting herself with the basket itself if her lie is sufficiently close to the pole. Is that a desired byproduct?

davidsauls
Feb 25 2010, 04:47 PM
That's a bit absurd. Shame on your English teacher :)

The sentence describes two prohibitions on supporting point contact. The first is a prohibition against contact with the marker disc. The second is a prohibition against contact with any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc. Additionally, the word "object" is immediately adjacent to "closer". Nonetheless, no matter how you read it, supporting point contact between the lie and the hole is prohibited.

It does seem pointless to prohibit contact with an object that is partially behind and partially in front of a lie, as long as the contact is with the portion behind the lie.

"....have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc..."

Perhaps better punctuation:

"....have no supporting point contact (with the marker disc or any object) closer to the hole...."

That's how I read it. Someone else may read it as

"...have no supporting point contact (1) with the marker disc or (2) with any object, (if the object is) closer to the hole...."

You can make grammatical arguments either way, but my interpretation makes more sense to me when applied to the situation. At least to me, though I'm not that bright. The latter can be argued to absurdity if you define the ground as an object.

Wording can always be refined to be more concise and precise, though you have to decide whether you want the rulebook to read like IRS tax instructions.

august
Feb 25 2010, 06:33 PM
That interpretation would leave open the possibility of a player's supporting herself with the basket itself if her lie is sufficiently close to the pole. Is that a desired byproduct?

Didn't think of that. Maybe that could be addressed by prohibiting contact with the basket/target while taking a stance in any situation whatsoever.

august
Feb 25 2010, 06:46 PM
"....have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc..."

Perhaps better punctuation:

"....have no supporting point contact (with the marker disc or any object) closer to the hole...."

That's how I read it. Someone else may read it as

"...have no supporting point contact (1) with the marker disc or (2) with any object, (if the object is) closer to the hole...."

You can make grammatical arguments either way, but my interpretation makes more sense to me when applied to the situation. At least to me, though I'm not that bright. The latter can be argued to absurdity if you define the ground as an object.

Wording can always be refined to be more concise and precise, though you have to decide whether you want the rulebook to read like IRS tax instructions.

I hear you totally and would add that it's very likely different wording would probably lead you and I, and hopefully the majority, to the same understanding every time we read it.

I think if you worded it "....marker disc or any object, which object or any portion thereof is closer to the hole than the rear edge......" that would clarify a little more.

I paraphrase what I said earlier; if two prudent, reasonable people come to equally valid and reasonable interpretations of the same rule, then it could use some tweaking. And that's not derogatory to the original authors.

stevev
Feb 26 2010, 01:39 AM
Please, keep the diagraming of sentences out of this discusion!!! What anxiety producing emotions are stired up from those long forgotten grade school days when the Nuns carried around wooden rulers in their hands and a kid had to diagram a sentence in front of the whole class! : ) How about a DVD being made by the PDGA that could visually show the rules to non-sentence diagramers?

davidsauls
Feb 26 2010, 08:29 AM
I hear you totally and would add that it's very likely different wording would probably lead you and I, and hopefully the majority, to the same understanding every time we read it.

I think if you worded it "....marker disc or any object, which object or any portion thereof is closer to the hole than the rear edge......" that would clarify a little more.

I paraphrase what I said earlier; if two prudent, reasonable people come to equally valid and reasonable interpretations of the same rule, then it could use some tweaking. And that's not derogatory to the original authors.

Yes, though perhaps a little legalese. My preference would be to separate the sentences.

"....no supporting point closer than the rear edge...." Then, a second sentence to the effect of " 'Supporting Point' refers to any contact with the ground or any object."

Or something to that effect.

*

One probable problem with tweaking the wording is that we wouldn't want to re-issue the rule book with one, or even a handful of tweaks. And a complete review / rewording / overhaul is a chore.

davidsauls
Feb 26 2010, 09:12 AM
Please, keep the diagraming of sentences out of this discusion!!! What anxiety producing emotions are stired up from those long forgotten grade school days when the Nuns carried around wooden rulers in their hands and a kid had to diagram a sentence in front of the whole class! : ) How about a DVD being made by the PDGA that could visually show the rules to non-sentence diagramers?

It was a deliberate maneuver to confound the kids on the discussion board. Rumor has it that schools no longer teach diagramming sentences though, like so many other things, I could be wrong.

Ah, the future. An electronic rulebook, accessible by smartphone, broad enough for examples and clarifications, instantly updatable whenever flaws are found or changes needed. Ideally, none of the rules in this electronic rulebook will prohibit phones on the course.

chainmeister
Mar 01 2010, 03:36 PM
The grammatical detour was amusing but does not seem to apply to the original question or the add-on issue of overhanging branches. The tree is large and leaning on it does not move the branches overhead. Hence, no violation. The tree is behind the player. The branches protrude forward in front of the player but they are in the air. The same would go for a player making a putt. His/her supporting point (or trunk if you will) is behind the marker while the upper body and arm may be in the air ahead of said marker. The reasoning would seem to be the same for both situations. If he was leaning on a sapling or smaller tree, and if by doing so he moves the canopy, one could argue he has violated the rule by changing the course in front of him. I don't think this would change if the tree were a big old weeping willow that had its fronds reaching down to the ground. The tree is still supported by its trunk and not by the fronds. The tree is still behind the player yet it may create an obstruction in front of him.

davidsauls
Mar 01 2010, 05:01 PM
The grammatical detour was amusing but does not seem to apply to the original question or the add-on issue of overhanging branches. The tree is large and leaning on it does not move the branches overhead. Hence, no violation. The tree is behind the player. The branches protrude forward in front of the player but they are in the air. The same would go for a player making a putt. His/her supporting point (or trunk if you will) is behind the marker while the upper body and arm may be in the air ahead of said marker. The reasoning would seem to be the same for both situations. If he was leaning on a sapling or smaller tree, and if by doing so he moves the canopy, one could argue he has violated the rule by changing the course in front of him. I don't think this would change if the tree were a big old weeping willow that had its fronds reaching down to the ground. The tree is still supported by its trunk and not by the fronds. The tree is still behind the player yet it may create an obstruction in front of him.

Actually, the grammar argument does apply.

Others were arguing that the rule is worded so it can be interpreted as (1) the tree is an object, (2) the tree is an object, part of which (the branches) is between the lie and the basket, (3) the player cannot be touching such an object. Nothing to do with whether the object is moved by the contact.

Hence the grammar dispute. If "closer" modifies "object", then their argument is probably correct.

august
Mar 02 2010, 01:38 PM
The grammatical detour was amusing but does not seem to apply to the original question or the add-on issue of overhanging branches. The tree is large and leaning on it does not move the branches overhead. Hence, no violation. The tree is behind the player. The branches protrude forward in front of the player but they are in the air. The same would go for a player making a putt. His/her supporting point (or trunk if you will) is behind the marker while the upper body and arm may be in the air ahead of said marker. The reasoning would seem to be the same for both situations. If he was leaning on a sapling or smaller tree, and if by doing so he moves the canopy, one could argue he has violated the rule by changing the course in front of him. I don't think this would change if the tree were a big old weeping willow that had its fronds reaching down to the ground. The tree is still supported by its trunk and not by the fronds. The tree is still behind the player yet it may create an obstruction in front of him.

Some large trees cannot be perceptively moved by a 175 lb. human. Accordingly, placing a supporting point on such a tree is okay. Tiny sapling gets moved if a human blows on it, so not cool to place a supporting point on such a tree.

If the branch is attached to the tree but is 100 feet up in the air and protruding towards the target, I don't see how that could be considered to be between the lie and the hole unless you consider the corresponding zenith. If it's a weeping willow tree with fronds hanging down to the ground from a branch 100 feet up in the air, then that's different due to the nature of weeping willow trees.

chainmeister
Mar 03 2010, 05:04 PM
Some large trees cannot be perceptively moved by a 175 lb. human. Accordingly, placing a supporting point on such a tree is okay. Tiny sapling gets moved if a human blows on it, so not cool to place a supporting point on such a tree.

If the branch is attached to the tree but is 100 feet up in the air and protruding towards the target, I don't see how that could be considered to be between the lie and the hole unless you consider the corresponding zenith. If it's a weeping willow tree with fronds hanging down to the ground from a branch 100 feet up in the air, then that's different due to the nature of weeping willow trees.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is why I think little of the grammatical argument. Although I am an attorney an make my living on such shennanigans, I feel common sense must have some meaning in a game. As far as I am concerned, the tree is behind the player. I think the argument ends there. To the extent that movement behind the lie can alter the course in front of the lie, such as my discussion of the fronds, I feel the rule is being violated. It gets interesting(but not from a grammatical point) when the branches move a touch but its really difficult to argue whether this helps or hurts the player. This would happen with a 6-12" tree. An inadvertent movement can shake the branches such that they may knock down the throw or let it pass. In all of these situations the tree is still behind the lie.

I agree the sidewalk analogy did not work as its part of the course and not an object. Lets replace said sidewalk with a large dead tree laying on the ground. The disc lies on the middle of the tree. part of it exends behind the disc and part of it extends in front. Lets assume its more than 30 cm each way. It seems to me you have to take your stance on the tree unless you deem it unplayable and want a penalty. By standing or sitting on the tree behind your mark are you touching an object that is closer? I think not. If so, I think you are in a grammatical and metaphysical loop that does not allow you to play a shot at all. Its silly to me.

krupicka
Mar 03 2010, 06:08 PM
The felled tree analogy fails in that we enter into arguments on whether or not such a large tree is a playing surface or an obstacle. If it is an obstacle then one must use a lie immediately behind it, but if it is a playing surface, then one should use a lie on the tree. Typically, I would rule that the felled tree is not a playing surface.

bruce_brakel
Mar 04 2010, 06:06 PM
And typically, I'd argue to the contrary. ;D