DShelton
Jun 13 2010, 10:00 PM
This question came up today at leagues and I knew you knowledgeable people could answer the question.

A stream runs through the course and a torrential thunderstorm had just struck, swelling the stream to about shin height (it's usually only about 1 -4 inches deep). The rules of the league state that ALL water is casual so the stream is not OB. The disc hits the basket, rolls into the stream and is swept down stream and is gone. Would you receive a lost disc penalty or just mark the disc where it went into the stream?

We called it lost but thought we would ask you fine people if that was the correct ruling.

cgkdisc
Jun 13 2010, 11:17 PM
If you saw the disc "stop" after losing its own momentum before the stream swept it away, I would say no penalty and mark it where it stopped. It's no different than if you saw the disc land up ahead and a dog or person took the disc and ran off with it never to be seen again. Mark it where it was on the playing surface with no penalty.

pterodactyl
Jun 14 2010, 02:01 AM
If you always play the creek as "casual", then your relief and mark would be on the other side of the creek, right?

cgkdisc
Jun 14 2010, 08:11 AM
If water is casual, you may also play from your mark in the water which is your lie unless you decide to take relief.

jrymaszewski
Jun 14 2010, 11:37 AM
If I am correct it should be recorded as a lost disc and a shot added to the players score. He/she would then throw a new disc from where ot went onto the stream.

cgkdisc
Jun 14 2010, 11:50 AM
No penalty since there's no lost disc until after the lie was established.

august
Jun 14 2010, 03:09 PM
If you saw the disc "stop" after losing its own momentum before the stream swept it away, I would say no penalty and mark it where it stopped. It's no different than if you saw the disc land up ahead and a dog or person took the disc and ran off with it never to be seen again. Mark it where it was on the playing surface with no penalty.


What if it didn't stop first? It's possible that there would be no discernable "stop" before the disc is taken over by the water.

veganray
Jun 14 2010, 03:13 PM
803.03f:
a disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.

go18under
Jun 14 2010, 04:28 PM
chuck, what happens if the disc went out of vision when it rolled past the basket.....everybody knows it rolled in the creek behind it, but nobody actually saw it come to rest, or float away.....what is the call then?

Several players are very confused with this topic.....I have seen players walk back to the tee pad after a shot in the woods.....basically because there are no spotters, and the terain is very rough....I think the group should give the player a group spot where they last saw the disc.....making a player walk all the way back to the pad, gives our sport a black eye, and less credibility in my opinion.

Some players still think if you can't see your disc in the water, when they obviously saw it go in....it's a lost disc. You would be surprised at the seasoned PDGA professioanls who see this rule very differently....

cgkdisc
Jun 14 2010, 04:42 PM
I was careful in my answer to the question as you stated it. If it was casual water and the group saw it go in before being swept away, not from its own momentum, then the mark is where it was seen to hit or temporarily stop in the water. Consider that the PDGA rule allows the beneift of the doubt on an unfound disc that likely went into water versus being lost. See section A: http://www.pdga.com/rules/80309-out-of-bounds

In the same way, that benefit should be provided to a player who throws into casual water and can't find the disc whether the group saw it go in or it was blind and the grass around the water is cut well enough that the group could be reasonably sure the disc must have gone in the water.

go18under
Jun 14 2010, 06:41 PM
I was careful in my answer to the question as you stated it. If it was casual water and the group saw it go in before being swept away, not from its own momentum, then the mark is where it was seen to hit or temporarily stop in the water. Consider that the PDGA rule allows the beneift of the doubt on an unfound disc that likely went into water versus being lost. See section A: http://www.pdga.com/rules/80309-out-of-bounds

In the same way, that benefit should be provided to a player who throws into casual water and can't find the disc whether the group saw it go in or it was blind and the grass around the water is cut well enough that the group could be reasonably sure the disc must have gone in the water.

what about a blind hyzer into the deep woods that nobody can find? the disc is lost, but everybody knows about where it went......why can't the group make a decision on the last location they saw the disc, instead of letting a player make that looooong emberassing walk back to the teepad.....messing up tournament flow....?

Clue
Jun 14 2010, 07:42 PM
what about a blind hyzer into the deep woods that nobody can find? the disc is lost, but everybody knows about where it went......why can't the group make a decision on the last location they saw the disc, instead of letting a player make that looooong emberassing walk back to the teepad.....messing up tournament flow....?
Because there's no rule that allows for that. There is no assumed interference by someone picking it up. There's no creek or pond that it presumably disappeared into. It's just lost. The argument here is whether the presumption of disappearing into the creek is good enough to keep it from being a lost disc.

cgkdisc
Jun 14 2010, 10:41 PM
The Rules Committee is looking to improving the lost disc rule but that's only indirectly related to the OP.

august
Jun 15 2010, 09:38 AM
803.03f:

So does that mean you can mark a lie where the disc stopped moving on it's own even though by the time you get there the disc has drifted off into the Chesapeake Bay? Wouldn't that require a spotter?

cgkdisc
Jun 15 2010, 09:46 AM
Depends whether the group saw it stop in a spot before disappearing. This is a version of the Interference rule where once the disc is at rest on the playing surface (which a lie in casual water would be), it can't be moved without being replaced in that position with no penalty for whatever happens after moving (by flowing water) or being moved from that lie by some other force (person, animal, wind).

august
Jun 15 2010, 01:19 PM
Seems like that would require a spotter, unless it was a really short hole and you can see all this from the tee or lie. Absent the spotter, it would seem the group would not be able to identify a "stop" location from long distances and thus would have to default to the lost disc rule. You can't replace the moved disc unless you can find it.

tkieffer
Jun 15 2010, 04:10 PM
You do the best you can as based on the consensus of the group. No different than if a disc at rest is grabbed by a dog or unknowing non-player and moved before you get there.

You can't judge exacly where it was, so close will have to suffice.

pterodactyl
Jun 15 2010, 06:31 PM
So does that mean you can mark a lie where the disc stopped moving on it's own even though by the time you get there the disc has drifted off into the Chesapeake Bay? Wouldn't that require a spotter?


Once you get the group to decide that your disc has stopped moving, yes you can mark it where it, in this case, paused.

I received a possitive ruling on this situation(without the drifting off) in the Michigan Worlds.

The player with the disc in question just needs to speak up and ask for the groups ruling. Show them the rule, if you have to, in the rule book.

ERicJ
Nov 17 2010, 12:53 AM
I was careful in my answer to the question as you stated it. If it was casual water and the group saw it go in before being swept away, not from its own momentum, then the mark is where it was seen to hit or temporarily stop in the water. Consider that the PDGA rule allows the beneift of the doubt on an unfound disc that likely went into water versus being lost. See section A: http://www.pdga.com/rules/80309-out-of-bounds

In the same way, that benefit should be provided to a player who throws into casual water and can't find the disc whether the group saw it go in or it was blind and the grass around the water is cut well enough that the group could be reasonably sure the disc must have gone in the water.

what about a blind hyzer into the deep woods that nobody can find? the disc is lost, but everybody knows about where it went......why can't the group make a decision on the last location they saw the disc, instead of letting a player make that looooong emberassing walk back to the teepad.....messing up tournament flow....?

Because there's no rule that allows for that. There is no assumed interference by someone picking it up. There's no creek or pond that it presumably disappeared into. It's just lost. The argument here is whether the presumption of disappearing into the creek is good enough to keep it from being a lost disc.

I [think I] understand the rationale behind allowing an unfound disc in OB territory to be declared "OB" and not "lost". You don't need to find the disc in order to mark the lie where it was last seen in bounds. And there's reasonable evidence of where the disc is.

However, it seems bizarre to me that the RC would apply that same latitude to an unfound disc in casual water. To quote the quote above: "there's no rule that allows for that".

Our ruling here follows the line of thought presented in response to the "Lost or OB" question, which is based on the presence of "reasonable evidence" that a disc went OB. If there is clear and compelling evidence that the disc is OB (for example, the entire group watched it land in the middle of a lake), then you play under the assumption that the disc is sitting there in the lake, even though you cannot see it. That assumption takes precedence over the fact that you cannot find it.

To be consistent, we treat the disc that we cannot see in the puddle the same way. We assume that the disc is sitting in the puddle, ignoring the fact that it can't be found. Given the reasonable evidence that the disc is sitting in the casual puddle, we do the same thing that we do with the disc in the OB lake: extrapolate from the evidence and play as if we saw it sitting there in the puddle. You take casual relief, with no penalty stroke.

Of course, it must be clear to the group that the disc went into the puddle. If there is any doubt about that, and the disc cannot be found, it is a lost disc.Why is this not held consistent with the "deep woods" question above? Or the scenario of a big tree/bush in the middle of an open fairway that the group saw the disc go into and not come out of?

To be consistent [with the RC] you should assume that the disc is stuck in the woods/tree/bush, ignoring the fact that it can't be found. Extrapolate from the evidence and play as if you saw it sitting in the woods/tree/brush.

Allowing a disc "lost" in in-bounds territory to be extrapolated is almost as bad as that flight-line-of-play disaster the RC tried to sell.

cgkdisc
Nov 17 2010, 01:36 AM
The difference is that water is not considered a place where a lie must be taken. It's either casual allowing LOP relief or OB where taking relief is required. The woods or heavy bushes are presumed to be inbounds areas where the lie, projected to the playing surface if it's suspended, must be played if the disc is found unless the player chooses to take relief with an unplayable penalty.

ERicJ
Nov 17 2010, 01:54 AM
The difference is that water is not considered a place where a lie must be taken. It's either casual allowing LOP relief or OB where taking relief is required. The woods or heavy bushes are presumed to be inbounds areas where the lie, projected to the playing surface if it's suspended, must be played if the disc is found unless the player chooses to take relief with an unplayable penalty.

Why does the option to take relief from the resulting extrapolated lie have anything to do with whether or not it is penalized as a lost disc? I'm missing that connection...

So if the TD declares water non-casual (and non-OB) such that you must take a lie there, then a disc in such water would be penalized as "lost" if it couldn't be found?

ERicJ
Nov 17 2010, 02:07 AM
The Lost Disc rule is pretty cut and dry: if you can't find it based on where it was last seen it's lost. The OB rule makes and exception for being lost based on reasonable evidence of being OB. There isn't anything in those rules about water being treated differently.

Where's the rule that says water is different, or the rule that says the ability to take relief absolves a player from the disc being lost?

Hoser
Nov 17 2010, 03:53 PM
The folks on this thread have enough confidence in their rules knowledge to post opinions in public. So surely they know, better than most PDGA members, how to sensibly use PDGA rules, with reason and logic and extrapolation and RC interpretation and benefit of the doubt, to find the correct mark and penalty in DShelton�s scenario:


SCENARIO: A disc goes into an IB creek and is swept away and can�t be found. Where is the lie and what (if any) penalty is there?

Here�s is a list of their rulings:


� 1 stroke penalty, and rethrow from prior lie.

� No penalty, and mark where the disc lost its own momentum in the creek.

� No penalty, and mark on the far side of the creek.

� No penalty, and mark either where the disc lost its own momentum in the creek or on the LOP on the far side of the creek. [This doesn�t address the fact that Rule 803.05 �obstacles and relief� will charge you a penalty stroke if you move back farther than 5M on the LOP.]

� 1 stroke penalty, and mark where the disc went into the creek.

� The disc can�t be lost until after its lie is established.

� If the group knows the disc went into the creek, but they didn�t actually see it go in: No penalty, and mark where the group last saw the disc.

� If the disc is in IB water but the disc can�t be found: No penalty, and mark in the water, even though the disc is IB and lost [which, according to Rule 803.11B, would mean 1 stroke penalty and rethrow].

� If the disc is lost inbounds, let the group make a decision on where they last saw the disc.

� If you�re sure it went into the IB creek, then the lost disc rule can�t apply.

� If the group knows that the disc went into the creek, but they don�t know where the disc lost its momentum in the water because they didn�t actually see it go into the creek: Default to the lost disc rule (i.e., 1 stroke penalty and rethrow).



Don�t worry, folks, the 2011 PDGA rulebook is coming out soon, and it surely will help players more easily solve field-of-play scenarios.

DShelton
Nov 17 2010, 05:58 PM
I for one trust most members of this forum to give a ruling that fits within the confines of the rules. Yes it may take some back and forth at times, but their interpretation of the rules are sound.

You, on the other hand, just showed a contempt of those fine people that makes me not want to trust anything from you. You could have given us an interpretation that might be useful, but instead, you mocked everyone here.

james_mccaine
Nov 17 2010, 07:19 PM
The Lost Disc rule is pretty cut and dry: if you can't find it based on where it was last seen it's lost. The OB rule makes and exception for being lost based on reasonable evidence of being OB. There isn't anything in those rules about water being treated differently.

Where's the rule that says water is different, or the rule that says the ability to take relief absolves a player from the disc being lost?

I imagine that when a question comes to the RC, they use their imagination to create a visual. It's a natural and intuitive response. Seems entirely reasonable.

Regarding casual water, I go to my memory bank and visualize situations where a disc could go unfound in casual water. In all of my recalled visualizations, their ruling seems completely reasonable. Also, I can recall very few instances where a disc is lost in a tree that are analogous in my view.

Btw, I am glad I read this. I had a situation at Texas States (after a huge storm of course). My disc went into the normally dry swale that had about two feet of water and was ten feet wide. The water was casual. I was in a panic to find my disc in the alloted time, in order to avoid the lost disc rule. Everyone saw where it "landed" in the swale, but we were under the assumption that it needed to be found to avoid the lost disc rule. A very cool competitor waded in with me and found it, and I played it as casual. If we hadn't found it, playing it as a lost disc (reteeing in this case) would have been completely anal.

I very much appreciate the RC and their usually reasonable interpretations. Rather than leading me to question the rules and the RC, it sends me in the opposite direction. Despite some illusions and criticisms posted here that there are rules that wouldn't need interpretation, or that the interpretations in disc golf are too numerous and inconsistent, I realize that all rules need discretion applied, and reasonable discretion beats the hell out of unreasonable discretion.

ERicJ
Nov 17 2010, 07:42 PM
I appreciate the probably thankless job that the RC does interpreting rules in situations where the rulebook does not specifically cover the scenario. However, it would be nice if those interpretations were consistently based on the written rules.

I'm still missing the link that allows water to be treated as a special hazard differently than say a thick bush. Or anything related to why the option for taking relief is relevant to the discussion.

cgkdisc
Nov 17 2010, 07:50 PM
I'm still missing the link that allows water to be treated as a special hazard differently than say a thick bush. Or anything related to why the option for taking relief is relevant to the discussion. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
803.05 C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round.

I see casual water in the rule but not a tree, thick bush or rocks. That's the difference.

ERicJ
Nov 17 2010, 08:03 PM
803.05 C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round.

I see casual water in the rule but not a tree, thick bush or rocks. That's the difference.

Sorry, in the vein of this discussion, I should have written: "I'm still missing the link that allows water to be treated as a special hazard, with respect to lost disc, differently than say a thick bush. Or anything related to why the option for taking relief is relevant to the discussion."

So yes, I completely agree that it's obvious you get relief on your lie from casual water. But what is the basis for saying a disc in the [OB or casual] water can't be lost if you saw it go in? Why is watching it go into a puddle any different than watching it go into a thick bush?

And there is still the unanswered question of can a disc be lost in a puddle that is neither OB nor casual?

cgkdisc
Nov 17 2010, 08:34 PM
All bodies of water not designated as OB are casual in the Rules Definitions > Casual Water: Bodies of water other than those that have been specifically designated by the director prior to the start of the round as out-of-bounds or those that have been specifically designated by the director prior to the start of the round as not being casual water.

All bodies of water are treated with special relief rules which supersede the lost disc rule. We know this since it's directly stated in the OB rule with the concept extended to casual water. Trees and bushes do not have any special relief rules in relation to lost disc. Now, maybe a well defined field of pricker bushes could be designated as a relief area by the TD. Then, a disc the group saw landing in there would get relief even if it were never found or retrieved and not count as a lost disc.

jamie
Nov 18 2010, 10:02 AM
Some players still think if you can't see your disc in the water, when they obviously saw it go in....it's a lost disc. You would be surprised at the seasoned PDGA professioanls who see this rule very differently...

EricJ

So yes, I completely agree that it's obvious you get relief on your lie from casual water. But what is the basis for saying a disc in the [OB or casual] water can't be lost if you saw it go in? Why is watching it go into a puddle any different than watching it go into a thick bush?


So people could watch someone throw over a pond, hit the dam, roll back into the water(lets say for arguments sake that it made it 15-20 out in pond), then you're gonna make a competitor, in the middle of the round, dive in and find the disc or make him re-tee for a lost disc???? Really???WOW!!

ERicJ
Nov 19 2010, 02:42 AM
So people could watch someone throw over a pond, hit the dam, roll back into the water(lets say for arguments sake that it made it 15-20 out in pond), then you're gonna make a competitor, in the middle of the round, dive in and find the disc or make him re-tee for a lost disc???? Really???WOW!!
First, if the pond is declared OB, then no. You play by OB rules which allow for reasonable evidence of being OB, thus play from last spot of in-bounds, re-tee option, or DZ if applicable.

Second, if the water is not OB, then how is your example any different that that same player throwing their disc deep into thick woods and making the group look for it for three minutes before going back to re-tee when it can't be found???

Third, if the pond is that large and is not OB, why didn't the TD make it OB???

Wait... I think I forgot a question mark up there in the second point. "?". There.

ERicJ
Nov 19 2010, 04:47 AM
All bodies of water not designated as OB are casual in the Rules Definitions > Casual Water: Bodies of water other than those that have been specifically designated by the director prior to the start of the round as out-of-bounds or those that have been specifically designated by the director prior to the start of the round as not being casual water.

I agree with you that by default all bodies of water not designated as OB are casual. But that definition of Casual Water clearly gives the TD the latitude to declare water as non-casual, non-OB. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that, but the rule is written that way. It opens the possibility of water in which you must mark a lie.


All bodies of water are treated with special relief rules which supersede the lost disc rule.

What written rule number says anything about water superseding lost disc? What written rule number says anything about relief being relevant to lost disc?

All bodies of water are treated with special relief rules which supersede the lost disc rule. We know this since it's directly stated in the OB rule with the concept extended to casual water.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see where that's directly stated in the OB rule. I see no verbiage at all about special relief for water in the OB rule.

I see the Q&A opinion on the matter which happens to reference OB water, but could just as easily have used an example where a disc was thrown over an OB fence into a field of very tall grass, or a disc was thrown into an OB zoo pen of wild wolves (Victoria course). In all those examples the key is that the disc is not visible but clearly surrounded by OB. Not that it happened to be in water.

The Rules Q&A for lost disc in casual water says:
Our ruling here follows the line of thought presented in response to the "Lost or OB" question, which is based on the presence of "reasonable evidence" that a disc went OB. If there is clear and compelling evidence that the disc is OB (for example, the entire group watched it land in the middle of a lake), then you play under the assumption that the disc is sitting there in the lake, even though you cannot see it. That assumption takes precedence over the fact that you cannot find it.

To be consistent, we treat the disc that we cannot see in the puddle the same way. We assume that the disc is sitting in the puddle, ignoring the fact that it can't be found. Given the reasonable evidence that the disc is sitting in the casual puddle, we do the same thing that we do with the disc in the OB lake: extrapolate from the evidence and play as if we saw it sitting there in the puddle. You take casual relief, with no penalty stroke.I can find no written rule to give the player the latitude to extrapolate the location of an in-bounds lost disc... only this [un]offical Q&A.

By the exact same logic used in that rules Q&A: to be consistent you should treat a disc that you cannot see in a thick bush the same way. You assume the disc is sitting in the bush, ignoring the fact that it can't be found. Given the reasonable evidence that the disc is sitting in the bush, you do the same thing you do with a disc in the OB lake: extrapolate from the evidence and play as if you saw it sitting in the bush. You mark the lie, with no penalty stroke.

If you don't buy that case I don't see how you can buy the case of the disc in the casual puddle. The extraneous fact that you can take relief from casual water is irrelevant to the root of the discussion (the disc is lost in bounds).

bruceuk
Nov 19 2010, 07:47 AM
If you don't buy that case I don't see how you can buy the case of the disc in the casual puddle. The extraneous fact that you can take relief from casual water is irrelevant to the root of the discussion (the disc is lost in bounds).

I agree that under the currently written rules you can only ignore lost discs in OB, nowhere else, regardless of rules Q&As. I consider the Q&As to be a guide as to how the next set of rules will be updated, rather than as gospel.

However I disagree with your 'big bush' scenario. You can't call the relief aspect of casual water irrelevant, it is the fundemental difference.

In both the OB and casual water scenarios, you do not need to know the precise position of the disc to establish your lie, because your lie is not where the disc itself actually resides; it's decided by the relief rule.

In the 'big bush' scenario, your lie is precisely where your disc lies, nowhere else, so you have to locate it to establish your lie, if not, then it's lost.

If only it were that simple though, because you can of course declare a disc unplayable. So if you throw it clearly into the heart of an inpenetrable thicket, can you declare unplayable and play from behind the thicket, even if you can't see it? Logically following the RCs previous extrapolation, I think the answer has to be yes; any situation that allows relief cannot enforce the lost disc rule.

So in general I disagree with the RCs Q&A ruling on this one, I think it should be restricted to OB only, partly because of the scope creep as detailed above, but mostly because I was being a bit generous in applying my earlier statement "you do not need to know the precise position of the disc to establish your lie, because your lie is not where the disc itself actually resides" to casual water and unplayable lies. Actually you do need to know where it is as your relief is on the line of play, and you can't establish that without establishing the precise location of the disc. OB differs as the final resting place is irrelevant, only where it crossed OB matters.

ERicJ
Nov 19 2010, 09:58 AM
However I disagree with your 'big bush' scenario. You can't call the relief aspect of casual water irrelevant, it is the fundemental difference.

In both the OB and casual water scenarios, you do not need to know the precise position of the disc to establish your lie, because your lie is not where the disc itself actually resides; it's decided by the relief rule.

Casual Relief is irrelevant. For exactly the reason you cite at the end of your post. For both the casual puddle and the thick bush cases you need to know, per the rules, exactly where the disc lies to (a) establish the line of play and subsequently mark the lie in the puddle case or (b) mark the lie directly in the thick bush case.

If the RC Q&A sets the precedent that you can extrapolate the location of a lost disc location in a puddle... then it is no different than extrapolating it in any other in bounds obstacle, hazard, or location. The RC has taken the first step down the slippery slope.

OB is different. You can, especially with the use of spotters, determine with certainty the location where the disc was last in bounds.... regardless of where the disc actually resides in OB territory. Finding a lost disc in OB is not necessary to establish a lie as the disc's final resting place is irrelevant if you know where it last crossed in bounds and there is reasonable evidence it came to rest OB.


In the 'big bush' scenario, your lie is precisely where your disc lies, nowhere else, so you have to locate it to establish your lie, if not, then it's lost.

If only it were that simple though, because you can of course declare a disc unplayable. So if you throw it clearly into the heart of an inpenetrable thicket, can you declare unplayable and play from behind the thicket, even if you can't see it? Logically following the RCs previous extrapolation, I think the answer has to be yes; any situation that allows relief cannot enforce the lost disc rule.

Unplayable lie can be called for any lie after the tee shot, right?. So if your statement in red is true then you could never enforce the lost disc rule. I don't believe that relief is really relevant to the discussion here.


So in general I disagree with the RCs Q&A ruling on this one, I think it should be restricted to OB only, partly because of the scope creep as detailed above, but mostly because I was being a bit generous in applying my earlier statement "you do not need to know the precise position of the disc to establish your lie, because your lie is not where the disc itself actually resides" to casual water and unplayable lies. Actually you do need to know where it is as your relief is on the line of play, and you can't establish that without establishing the precise location of the disc. OB differs as the final resting place is irrelevant, only where it crossed OB matters.

So in the end it sounds like you're in complete agreement with my understanding of the rules... right?

krupicka
Nov 19 2010, 10:11 AM
One item to take into account is that in the case described here the interference rule comes into play. It is possible that the stream was essentially causing interference in that the disc came to rest and then was swept away. It is no different than seeing a disc land in the back of an inbounds park district truck which is oblivious and carts the disc back to the maintenance shed.

bruceuk
Nov 19 2010, 10:31 AM
So in the end it sounds like you're in complete agreement with my understanding of the rules... right?

I think that's what I said in the very first sentence of my post, which was just about the only bit you didn't quote! :p

The rest of it was just arguing why the RC might see fit to distinguish between 'in that bush' and in an area where relief applies, but for all the reasons I and you stated, I agree it's a slippery slope that they probably shouldn't go down. But as the 2011 rules are already printed, I guess we'll wait and see...

Regarding krupica's point, I think that's valid. If you have seen a disc come to rest, i.e. in line with 803.03 F. "A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only
by the action of the water or the wind on the water.", then be carried away by the stream, then yes, you have a lie to work your relief from. That's different from we're pretty sure it's in that casual pond somewhere.

bruce_brakel
Nov 19 2010, 10:31 AM
Sorry, in the vein of this discussion, I should have written: "I'm still missing the link that allows water to be treated as a special hazard, with respect to lost disc, differently than say a thick bush. Or anything related to why the option for taking relief is relevant to the discussion."

So yes, I completely agree that it's obvious you get relief on your lie from casual water. But what is the basis for saying a disc in the [OB or casual] water can't be lost if you saw it go in? Why is watching it go into a puddle any different than watching it go into a thick bush?

And there is still the unanswered question of can a disc be lost in a puddle that is neither OB nor casual?

The basis for saying that the disc is not lost is the argument that when it hit the moving water and got swept away, the lie was established at that point of contact with the water under rule 803.03(F).

I would agree with Chuck that if you saw the disc go into the water, then the current of the creek does not change its lie from where it entered the water. But your example exposes a flaw in the rules: if the water is o.b. the rules are pretty clear in this situation; if the water is casual, the rules are somewhat murky, especially if you do not see the disc go in the water.

james_mccaine
Nov 19 2010, 12:45 PM
All this carping over a reasonable RC interpretation is pretty bad form, and the arguments seem lacking. One appears to be: the ruling is wrong because a disc lost in a bush should also be afforded the the same reasonableness as one lost in casual water. Hardly an indictment of a reasonable interpretation. This is more about extending the ruling, then eliminating it.

However, extending it would run right sqaure into the fact that the two situations are hardly equivalent, a fundamental weakness in the argument as a whole. These situations are very different in practical terms. One is in the frequency of actual occurences where we know exactly where the disc entered the two cases, but we cannot find the disc (in my experience at least). Another is the likely difficulty of the resultant shot, assuming that the disc was found (the shot out of casual water vs. the shot out of some bush that is so thick as to be a black hole). The third difference is the importance of the precision of the resulting lie. The exact placement of a lie in the line of play in casual water is usally far less critical than the placement of the lie in a big bad bush.


Alternatively, there is the argument that since there is not absolute certainty in the disc location in either case, then the cases must be equivalent. This type of rigidity is maddening to me on so many levels, both in the dishonesty of the premise and the intellectual weakness of the conclusion.

Hoser
Nov 19 2010, 02:25 PM
ERicJ and Bruceuk, your exchange in Posts #32, #33, #34 and #36 is brilliant and absolutely on point in each rule. Thank you.


* * *


Krupicka, your Post #35 is intriguing. Two things, though:


� The interference rule (803.07B) says, �If a disc at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target is moved, the disc shall be replaced.� But a disc landing in deep running water is deemed to be at rest ABOVE, NOT ON, the playing surface (re 803.03F) �once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.� Likewise your disc landing in the back of a park maintenance truck is above, not on, the playing surface. Interference rule 803.07B doesn�t apply to discs above the playing surface.

� Your scenario of a truck carrying a disc away brings up 803.11C (lost disc): �If it is discovered, prior to the completion of the tournament, that a player�s disc that was declared lost had been removed or taken, then the player shall have two throws removed from his or her score.� The phrase �removed or taken� doesn�t specify who or what does the removing or the taking. The running water in DShelton�s scenario removed or took the disc from where 803.03F deemed it to rest. So in DShelton�s scenario:

Your disc is lost. 1 stroke penalty and rethrow.

You get two strokes removed from your score.

Net effect: the whole experience (except your missing disc) is nullified and you throw next from your prior lie.

ERicJ
Nov 19 2010, 05:56 PM
All this carping over a reasonable RC interpretation is pretty bad form, and the arguments seem lacking. One appears to be: the ruling is wrong because a disc lost in a bush should also be afforded the the same reasonableness as one lost in casual water. Hardly an indictment of a reasonable interpretation. This is more about extending the ruling, then eliminating it.

However, extending it would run right sqaure into the fact that the two situations are hardly equivalent, a fundamental weakness in the argument as a whole. These situations are very different in practical terms. One is in the frequency of actual occurences where we know exactly where the disc entered the two cases, but we cannot find the disc (in my experience at least). Another is the likely difficulty of the resultant shot, assuming that the disc was found (the shot out of casual water vs. the shot out of some bush that is so thick as to be a black hole). The third difference is the importance of the precision of the resulting lie. The exact placement of a lie in the line of play in casual water is usally far less critical than the placement of the lie in a big bad bush.


Alternatively, there is the argument that since there is not absolute certainty in the disc location in either case, then the cases must be equivalent. This type of rigidity is maddening to me on so many levels, both in the dishonesty of the premise and the intellectual weakness of the conclusion.

In spite of the fact that they literally write the rules, when did the RC become infallible?

Read the Q&A for "Disc lost in casual water (http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers/disc-lost-in-casual-water)". The subject itself specifies the disc is lost, in-bounds. And yet the "Applicable rules" listed are OB and Casual Obstacles. No mention of the Lost Disc rule.

The RC writes: "We assume that the disc is sitting in the puddle, ignoring the fact that it can't be found."

What written rule gives them the authority to do that for an in-bounds disc? If you respond to nothing else, answer me that?

As best as I can tell the the written rules allow you to ignore the fact that a disc cannot be found only for discs reasonably expected to be OB.


You're correct that my "thick bush" example isn't essential to my issue with the lost in casual water ruling. But it is an example that should be granted the same benefit of extrapolated location if the RC is applying interpretations "consistently" as they claim in the Q&A itself.

Should frequency of occurrence factor into the rule book? Probably, as a rulebook that covered every scenario would be unwieldy. But we're talking about a lost disc where players saw where it went, that is not an uncommon occurrence.

Where in the rulebook is difficulty of the shot even mentioned as a consideration? Where in the rulebook does is it even allude to the possibility that the marks of certain lies require greater precision than others?

cgkdisc
Nov 19 2010, 06:27 PM
The Fairness rule below gives the RC the authority to rule on a disc "seen to land in casual water but not found" as falling under the casual water rule and not lost rule:

F . Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.

The OB rule includes: In order to consider the disc as out-of bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B.

Perfectly acceptable interpretation for why discs seen to be lost in casual water are treated with a "logical extension of the closest existing rule."

The group still has to have reasonable evidence the disc is in the casual water or it's lost just like in OB water.

Regarding the definition that allows a TD to specify bodies of water as something other than casual or OB, we look to the Special Conditions rule. Casual relief areas may have an optional or required drop zone but they are still casual relief areas but with special conditions.

I've been involved in one other water scenario that required the TD to use the Special Conditions and Fairness rules. We had a massive cloudburst over lunchtime at an event where the shallow creek bed separating a few holes overflowed and half a dozen fairways were flooded with a few inches of water. The rain stopped about tee time. We still played the round but there was no relief from water, no OB for the creek which had no boundaries and no lost disc penalties. Players would be walking along looking for their disc and all of sudden mostly disappear when they "found the creek drop-off. That was a wild one but I can't remember if it was sanctioned or not sometime in the 90s.

james_mccaine
Nov 19 2010, 06:56 PM
My point is not that the RC is infallible, it is that this specific Q and A is a reasonable interpretation of the current rules.

The RC is assuming certain facts because it is necessary to answer the question. Do they don't need a written rule that says they can assume facts when interpreting the rules? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.

Why should your example be granted the same benefit if it is not analogous? Consistent application would be a valid criticism if the situations were indeed similar. You continue to assert that the situations are similar. When applied to your bush example, I'm having trouble visualizing "everyone saw where it went" as useful data on determing the proper lie. I don't have the same trouble in the casual water example.

Difficulty of the resulting shot was part of my argument that the examples are not similar.

In sum, the RC answer seems perfectly reasonable when applied to casual water, I cannot even envision extending it to a bush example. We "know" it is in that bush, but where are you going to mark it? In almost every situation I can envision, the determination of that uncertainty will likely be critical to the difficulty of the subsequent shot. I don't envision nearly as much uncertainty in a casual water example, and I doubt what little uncertainty exists will be significant on the difficulty of the subsequent shot.

bruceuk
Nov 20 2010, 09:06 AM
In sum, the RC answer seems perfectly reasonable when applied to casual water, I cannot even envision extending it to a bush example. We "know" it is in that bush, but where are you going to mark it? In almost every situation I can envision, the determination of that uncertainty will likely be critical to the difficulty of the subsequent shot. I don't envision nearly as much uncertainty in a casual water example, and I doubt what little uncertainty exists will be significant on the difficulty of the subsequent shot.

What if the bush in question is a foot high 5' by 5' patch of thick brambles? I think I covered perfectly reasonably how the unplayable lie rule can be invoked to give you a relief option that by the rule of fairness has just as much validity as the casual water relief interpretation. Forget the brambles even, I've lost discs under fallen leaves where I know within a couple of feet where the disc is, which seems to me to be at least as accurate as 'I know it's somewhere in that puddle'.

I just can't see how it's valid to invoke the fairness rule in either of these cases. The first words are "If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules", but clearly an IB disc that can't be found IS covered by the rules, it's covered by the lost disc one, regardless of where it's lost and how certain you are of where it is!

Hoser
Nov 20 2010, 04:28 PM
Chuck, your Rule of Fairness argument fails in three ways.


803.01F. Rule of fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.


IF ANY POINT IN DISPUTE IS NOT COVERED BY THE RULES

The Rule of fairness applies to disputes that aren�t covered by the rules.

But the point in dispute in DShelton�s scenario � how to mark and penalize a disc lost in IB water � IS covered by the rules:


� 803.03A (marking the lie) places a marker (which can be a marker disc or the unmoved thrown disc) where the disc is resting EXCEPT:

� 803.03B requires you to use a marker disc if you�re repositioning the lie under another lie location rule. One of those reposition rules is the lost disc rule 803.11.

� So 803.03A-B and 803.11 make it clear that the lost disc rule supersedes the IB lie location rule when a disc is lost IB. Neither rule says anything, not even a vague hint, to the contrary.

� 803.05B (casual water relief) grants relief from a lie in casual water � but the lie in DShelton�s scenario is not in the casual water: the lie has been relocated to the thrower�s prior lie in accordance with 803.11 and 803.03.

� The �casual water� definition says nothing relevant to the point in dispute.


Since the point in dispute in DShelton�s scenario is covered by the rules, the Rule of Fairness can�t be used to achieve any other ruling.


CLOSEST EXISTING RULE

You�re saying that the closest existing rule, to argue whether an unfound IB disc is lost or not, is the OB rule. No: the closest existing rule is the IB lie-location rule (803.03A). DShelton�s scenario is about an IB disc, not an OB disc, so surely the IB rule is closer to the point in dispute than the OB rule.

[NOTE: if there�s reasonable evidence that the unfound disc was swept downstream into OB or off the course, then the thrower has these two options under the OB rule (which supersedes the lost disc rule): (1) stroke and distance; or (2) mark in the stream where the disc crossed into OB or left the course. ALSO NOTE: 803.07B (interference) can�t be used to replace the disc to where it entered the running water, because the disc was deemed to rest above, not on, the playing surface � see my reply to Krupicka in Post #39.]


IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAIRNESS

You and I, and many other players, agree that it stinks that the PDGA rules make the thrower in DShelton�s scenario take a stroke-and-distance penalty for losing his disc. We�d all rather see him mark on the creekbottom below where his disc entered the moving water, and have an option to take casual relief from that lie.

Yet it�s not unfair to follow the rules written by the RC and approved by the PDGA board of directors: mark at the prior lie, plus 1 stroke penalty. That�s the way the PDGA wants the game to be played. None of us has any right to play the game differently � and if we insist on playing it differently, we risk DQ under 804.05A(3) (cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play).


* * *


Chuck, it�s ironic that your rule-logic is wrong but your sense of what makes a good game is right. Your desire to mark where the disc entered the water, with no penalty, makes a much better game than taking stroke and distance penalty in this scenario. We all know in our guts that the RC and the board should have created rules to make that happen. Yet they didn�t. And the 2011 rulebook (which you and I already have seen) doesn�t change that ruling � notwithstanding the apparent RC ruling that ERicJ quoted (Post #19) that circumvents the 2006 and 2011 PDGA rulebooks.


Further irony: if DShelton�s group were playing SnapChing instead of PDGA disc golf, you�d get your wish. The disc would be marked where it entered the running water, no penalty:

(Click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) to print out SnapChing�s single page of rules. Click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com) to see how SnapChing improves on disc golf.)


Rule 11: the disc is deemed to rest at the instant its thrown energy ends in the water.

Rule 6: the lie is on the ground.

Rule 7: the lie is below the spot where the disc first rested.

The disc�s first rest was at the instant its thrown energy ended in the water. The disc�s later rest -- wherever it may have washed ashore downstream -- doesn�t apply, to locate the lie in SnapChing.

Rule 9: you know where the lie is: it�s on the creekbottom below where the disc was deemed to rest where its thrown energy ended in the water. Since the lie is known, the lie is not lost.


[NOTE: SnapChing�s �lost� rule is a lost LIE rule, not a lost DISC rule. This makes sense: when you�re lost, your problem isn�t that you�re short one disc, it�s that you have no lie to play. SnapChing�s Rule 9 tells you how to get a relief lie, when your lie is lost. In DShelton�s scenario, the disc�s location is immaterial since you know where the lie is.]


SnapChing ruling: Your lie is on the bottom of the stream, below where the disc entered the running water. And, by Rule 7, if you can�t throw at all from that streambottom lie without injury, your lie is the closest place where you can, no penalty.

cgkdisc
Nov 20 2010, 04:50 PM
Sorry Hoser. The casual relief rule does not cover how to handle a disc not found in the way the OB rule does. So Fairness rule is used to borrow the similar principle which is essentially the basis for how RC wrote their Q&A. (In addition, I asked the TD and that's how he ruled. :))

Hoser
Nov 20 2010, 07:37 PM
Chuck, I apologize for being dense, but I can�t figure out what you�re saying in Post #45. Could you please rephrase that?

In particular: when you speak of the �casual relief rule,� are you talking about 803.05C which lists casual obstacles including casual water, and subrule C(2) which allows 5M free relief back along the LOP from casual obstacles to stance and throwing motion? If so, what does the casual relief rule have to do with unfound discs?

cgkdisc
Nov 20 2010, 08:21 PM
1. OB rule includes phrasing where a disc lost in it is treated as OB and not Lost based on reasonable proof.

2. Casual relief rule 803.05C does not have that phrasing, i.e., where casual rules are still used if disc lost in it with reasonable evidence.

3. Rule of Fairness provides that principles embodied and logical extension, etc. can be applied when similar situation not covered in writing.

4. Thus, the OB/Lost scenario can be inferred as extending to disc lost in casual water using the Fairness principle which is also what the RC stated in their Q&A on the topic.

Hoser
Nov 20 2010, 10:33 PM
Chuck, I promise you I�m not trying to be obstructive . . . but after Point 1, I still can�t understand what you�re saying.

Here�s what I comprehend so far:


The OB rule supersedes the lost disc rule when there�s reasonable evidence that the disc is OB.

The casual relief rule says nothing about reasonable evidence, and nothing about superseding the lost disc rule.


After that, your reasoning eludes me. Please try again � I really want to understand. Complete sentences, and rule citations, will help me. Thanks.

bruceuk
Nov 21 2010, 04:25 AM
1. OB rule includes phrasing where a disc lost in it is treated as OB and not Lost based on reasonable proof.

2. Casual relief rule 803.05C does not have that phrasing, i.e., where casual rules are still used if disc lost in it with reasonable evidence.

3. Rule of Fairness provides that principles embodied and logical extension, etc. can be applied when similar situation not covered in writing.

4. Thus, the OB/Lost scenario can be inferred as extending to disc lost in casual water using the Fairness principle which is also what the RC stated in their Q&A on the topic.
Your reasoning breaks down between 3&4, because it makes an assumption that the situation is not covered in writing. It very clearly is covered in 803.11, so you may not proceed to 4.

I understand why the RC tried to give some benefit of the doubt wiggle room for players here in an attempt not to overpenalise; it's very frustrating to have that 'but it's right here somewhere' feeling and have to walk back, but there are way too many similar scenarios (leaves, long grass, cut grass, thick scrub, etc) that share the same frustration, and I don't think we should be treating any IB lies as special cases.

PhattD
Nov 21 2010, 11:21 AM
I think what people are missing is this ruling is designed to cover a situation where you "know" where the disc is but are prevented from searching the area. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to treat the "disc being washed away by casual water" and the "disc landed in tall grass" as different situations and to be treated differently in the rules. It also doesn't seem unreasonable to treat casual water in a similar manner as OB water it terms "knowing" it went in but not being able to find it. I certainly understand the argument that you can follow the rules as written and declare the disc lost. What I don't think is reasonable is to have a water hazard that is more detrimental to a player by being declared casual than it would be if it was OB. I think there has to be some understanding that the rule book as written cannot possibly have considered every conceivable situation. And that when you come across a situation where it just doesn't make sense to take such a literal interpretation of the rules then the interest of fairness provision kicks in.

Just as an example, a November tournament in Michigan. Some recent rain had caused some flooding. It's 34 degrees out and there is a 50' diameter mud puddle about a foot deep in one of the fairways. The TD doesn't want people to have to wade in to play their lie so he declares it casual and lets players take relief. Now if you have to go in and find your disc in order to take the casual water relief what's the point?

cgkdisc
Nov 21 2010, 02:09 PM
Your reasoning breaks down between 3&4, because it makes an assumption that the situation is not covered in writing. It very clearly is covered in 803.11, so you may not proceed to 4.
Sorry Bruce but 803.11 does not apply because you don't have a lost disc. The situation we have is a disc known to have landed in casual water (reasonable evidence) but not seen. What do we do? We apply the casual relief rule, not the lost disc rule.

cgkdisc
Nov 21 2010, 02:15 PM
-The OB rule supersedes the lost disc rule when there’s reasonable evidence that the disc is OB.

- The casual relief rule says nothing about reasonable evidence, and nothing about superseding the lost disc rule.

After that, your reasoning eludes me. Please try again – I really want to understand. Complete sentences, and rule citations, will help me. Thanks.
The casual relief rule does not specifically say what to do when a disc known to land in a casual relief area cannot be found. At first you think, "maybe I use the Lost Disc rule?" But you think, "Wait, we have another rule that covers a similar scenario where a disc cannot be found that's known to land in OB water." The RC uses the Fairness rule to extend this OB rule principle to this essentially parallel casual relief situation.

bruceuk
Nov 21 2010, 02:50 PM
Sorry Bruce but 803.11 does not apply because you don't have a lost disc. The situation we have is a disc known to have landed in casual water (reasonable evidence) but not seen. What do we do? We apply the casual relief rule, not the lost disc rule.
A. A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official. Two players or an official must note when the timing of three minutes begins. All players of the group must, upon request, assist in searching for
the disc for the full three minutes before the disc is declared lost. The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three minute time limit

Please explain what part of this definition isn't met by the 'in that puddle somewhere' scenario? I don't see how you can say you dont have a lost disc? As far as I can see there is nothing about the puddle that differs from a pike of leaves or long grass or anything else on the course that obscures the location of the disc.

For avoidance of doubt I agree that if you and enough of the group to achieve consensus actually sees the disc hit the water and come to rest as defined by the disc in water rule, then you have a lie to declare relief from even if you can't find it, but only in that exact scenario, no extensions to 'reasonable evidence'

cgkdisc
Nov 21 2010, 03:39 PM
The condition of "not being seen in the casual puddle" occurs simultaneously with the 3 minute search being completed. The casual rule extension from the OB rule via Fairness takes precedence. The disc is still not really lost in the sense it's location is not known at all. It's judged by the group to be in a specifically defined area on the course. You can argue all you want but that's how the RC has ruled on it following that logic.

Hoser
Nov 21 2010, 05:49 PM
No, Chuck, the RC didn't say anything about the Rule of Fairness in its opinion @ pdga.com/faq �Rules Questions & Answers�:


Disc lost in casual water


Question: My disc landed in a murky puddle that had been declared by the TD to be casual water, and we could not find it. Do I play it as lost, or take casual relief?


Response: Applicable Rules: 803.09.A Out-of-Bounds, 803.05.C Casual Obstacles.

Our ruling here follows the line of thought presented in response to the "Lost or OB" question, which is based on the presence of "reasonable evidence" that a disc went OB. If there is clear and compelling evidence that the disc is OB (for example, the entire group watched it land in the middle of a lake), then you play under the assumption that the disc is sitting there in the lake, even though you cannot see it. That assumption takes precedence over the fact that you cannot find it.

To be consistent, we treat the disc that we cannot see in the puddle the same way. We assume that the disc is sitting in the puddle, ignoring the fact that it can't be found. Given the reasonable evidence that the disc is sitting in the casual puddle, we do the same thing that we do with the disc in the OB lake: extrapolate from the evidence and play as if we saw it sitting there in the puddle. You take casual relief, with no penalty stroke.

Of course, it must be clear to the group that the disc went into the puddle. If there is any doubt about that, and the disc cannot be found, it is a lost disc.


The RC doesn�t cite, or even mention, 803.01F (Rule of Fairness). They also don�t cite 803.03A-B (locating lies, including IB lies).

The RC uses 803.09A (OB) and 803.05C (casual obstacles) to argue that, when a disc can't be found in IB water, we can extrapolate from the OB rule that the IB lie location rule supersedes the lost disc rule. But in fact 803.09A and 803.05C don't even hint that any lost IB discs can, or should, be governed by the OB rule rather than by the lost disc rule. And the RC ignores 803.03A-B (locating lies, including IB lies) and 803.11 (lost disc) which are directly on point to govern a disc lost in casual water.

Finally, the RC tells us to take casual relief from a lie that no one has located, along a LOP that no one can establish.


* * *

One more thing. You have said that a disc in casual water and a disc in OB water are essentially the same with regard to reasonable evidence that the disc is in the hazard.

But there's a big difference. When a disc is OB, you don't need to know exactly where the disc has come to rest. All you need is reasonable evidence that the disc's resting place is somewhere inside the OB boundary, in order for the thrower to establish his lie either at his prior lie or at a drop zone or at the point where his group agrees that the disc crossed the OB line. But when a casual object (including casual water, according to the wording of 803.05C(2)) is an obstacle to your IB stance, you need to know exactly where the disc came to rest, in order to either play the IB lie or take casual relief along the LOP from that lie. You can't just play from, or take casual relief along the LOP from, "the pond" or "the stream," you have to play from, or take casual relief along the LOP from, "the lie." If you don't know where that lie is, then your lie (as well as your disc) is lost, and the lost disc rule is a much more rational solution than the OB rule.

cgkdisc
Nov 21 2010, 06:03 PM
To be consistent, we treat the disc that we cannot see in the puddle the same way.
They didn't cite the Fairness rule, but in this quoted statement, it's the common principle embodied in the OB rule being used for Casual Relief. It's a moot point arguing about it because the RC has stated that a disc not found but with "proof" it landed in casual water be handled this way. The fact that you may not know the exact location of the unseen disc when taking line of play relief is little different from how a group judges the location for the "last point IB" on an OB call or the old lost disc rule where the "last point seen" was judged by the group.

brock
Nov 22 2010, 01:11 AM
wow, a thread that provides an antipodean yet perspicacious dialogue...

brock approves
high five!!

where's josh connell to makes sense of all of this?

bruceuk
Nov 22 2010, 08:08 AM
I guess I just disagree with the rules they cite here. If the group sees the disc enter the water then there is no need to cite fairness or extrapolate from the OB rule, as 803.03 F establishes your lie and you take relief from that with no need to find the disc.

If the group does not see the disc enter the water, I don't feel there is 'reasonable evidence' that it's in there, at least not enough to establish a lie for LOP relief.

ERicJ
Nov 22 2010, 08:01 PM
This is a flagrant use of the "Rule of Fairness" to bend the "Lost Disc" rule.


If you don't like my "think bush" example then Bruce's "pile of loose leaves" works equally well and is even closer to the puddle situation.

The rulebook definitions inconveniently omit a definition for "lost disc". But 803.11 seems pretty clear: "A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official."

So even if you know where it was last seen, if you cannot locate the disc it is "lost". Anything else would seem to directly contradict 803.11 with the exception of the clearly specified, written exception for a disc OB... which has nothing to do with a disc being in water in the written rules.

There is no written rule that excepts a disc known with reasonable evidence to be in-bounds from being found.

804.01 D. No rules may be stipulated which conflict with the PDGA Rules of Play, unless approved by the Tour Manager of the PDGA.

But now the RC is saying that a disc lost in an in-bounds puddle is not lost.


If you have a disc that you cannot find in a fairway puddle which written rule would you consider the the closest? Lost Disc. Not a website Q&A extension of an OB rule that uses an OB lake in its example.

cgkdisc
Nov 22 2010, 08:38 PM
Sorry but there are multiple rules that can apply in certain situations. The RC sorts out which ones take priority to guide the player. Lost disc is last on the priority sequence with mando, OB and 2m (if active) being ahead of lost. The RC has indicated Casual relief is ahead of lost when a disc is known to have landed there.

Maybe the "disc not found in casual areas" should be in writing and it will once the Q&As become as official as the rulebook. That's already been approved by the Board. The RC is working on stripping down each Q&A to its bare essence.

Perhaps the highest level principle in the sport is to throw from where it lies or as close to that point as possible, especially if no penalty is applied. Following the casual relief rule is going to place the lie closer to where the disc actually is located than following the lost disc rule with penalty.

bruceuk
Nov 23 2010, 06:52 AM
Sorry but there are multiple rules that can apply in certain situations. The RC sorts out which ones take priority to guide the player. Lost disc is last on the priority sequence with mando, OB and 2m (if active) being ahead of lost. The RC has indicated Casual relief is ahead of lost when a disc is known to have landed there.
Ok, I can follow this logic, but in that case it needs to be applied to all relief cases. Do you need to find the disc to apply unplayable lie? It's been discussed on here before that you don't (disappeared into a ravine for example), so we come back to Eric's bush example or my pile of leaves; if I know it's in there but can't find it, what's stopping me declaring the lie unplayable and taking my relief option? Fairness would allow that if the RC have already ruled that I don't need to know the precise location to establish LOP relief in one case, it must be true in another.

krupicka
Nov 23 2010, 08:04 AM
Maybe the "disc not found in casual areas" should be in writing and it will once the Q&As become as official as the rulebook. That's already been approved by the Board. The RC is working on stripping down each Q&A to its bare essence.

It sure would be nice to see some meeting minutes from the board one of these days to see this kind of info.

Hoser
Nov 23 2010, 12:02 PM
Chuck, let�s clarify the �official� status of the FAQ/Q&As.


But first I want to say something to all of us on this forum: no one should disrespect the Rules Committee. Critique their work � yes, we have that right. But never doubt the character and good-hearted dedication of these guys. They give A LOT to the game. Every time the RC revises the rulebook, or posts a Q&A or a Rules School opinion, they have the courage to put their necks on the line and quietly let us hack away. I am especially impressed with RC Chair Conrad Damon. In all my dealings with him, he has been fair, courteous, forthright, thoughtful and transparent. Conrad fields as many as a dozen rules questions a week from the membership. He is volunteering big energy to help us. We owe him and his committee our thanks.

It is our privilege, as PDGA members, to critique the RC�s work. We are the RC�s sounding board, to test how their work governs the game. In disc golf�s 40 year history, we members have gained millions of hours� experience on the field of play, encountering 99% of all the situations that ever will arise on a disc golf course. We are qualified to ask the tough questions. We do a valuable service to the RC, and to the sport, through our respectful and courteous critique.


Now, about the FAQ/Q&As:


Under the PDGA�s corporate bylaws, the Board of Directors has sole authority to provide rules of play to the membership. The Rules Committee serves at the pleasure of the board. No RC decision becomes an official rule until the board votes to approve it.

When the RC submitted its 2011 rulebook revision for board approval late this summer, the RC also made this recommendation to the board:


Recommendation: Q&A�s

Currently the 38 Q&A�s have no official status. They are simply illustrative in nature, to be used as guidelines when it is not clear how a particular rule should be applied. That has led to some confusion as to whether they are enforceable as rules.

This recommendation is an attempt to alleviate that confusion. By comparison, the USGA has a Decisions Book which, in a similar vein, describes specific cases that illustrate how the rules of golf are to be applied. Those decisions carry the full force of rules.

That�s the direction the PDGA should move in. Simply declaring the Q&A�s to be official is not the best path, as they were not written with that goal in mind. Many of them need to be updated to reflect the latest rules revision, or possibly new thinking on the part of the Rules Committee.

Here are the steps that should be taken:

1. Add a preface to the Q&A�s that describes how and when they should be applied. For starters, the real-life situation must be substantially similar to the scenario addressed by the Q&A.

2. Each Q&A gets certified with regard to a particular revision. That certification must be marked clearly. For example, we could put the revision�s year in the Q&A�s title. Any Q&A that has not been certified for the current rules revision is a guideline, and not enforceable as a rule.

3. Once the 2011 revision has been finalized, the Rules Committee can begin certifying Q&A�s. That process will involve updating and possibly eliminating some of them.

4. Convert the Q&A�s into a form that can be published as a PDGA Decisions Book (we could call it something else).



Chuck, as you already know, the board likes the RC�s recommendation, and the board is encouraging the RC to conduct that review of the Q&As. The RC�s review has not yet begun, and no timetable has been set for its start, or its completion, or for board action to give the Q&As �rulebook� status.

If and when the board gives Q&As �rulebook� status, those Q&As will have passed a rigorous new vetting process to � as the RC recommends � update, re-think, and possibly eliminate some of them.

For the present, let�s honor the RC�s own view of the current Q&As: �a guideline, and not enforceable as a rule.� The Q&As stimulate us think about how to improve the rules. The Q&As do not make any point moot.



* * *


Chuck, you said:


Perhaps the highest level principle in the sport is to throw from where it lies or as close to that point as possible, especially if no penalty is applied. Following the casual relief rule is going to place the lie closer to where the disc actually is located than following the lost disc rule with penalty.

Of course you�re right that �play where it lies� is the game�s foundation. Yet the rulebook says that in certain situations � above ground, lost disc, OB, relief from casual obstacles, interference, 1M relief from an OB line, and the new (2011) �optional relief� � the game plays better if we play from somewhere else instead.

PDGA members can � and should � argue whether the rulebook is creating the best possible way to play disc golf. But until the PDGA publishes new rules, we have no right, for example, to favor the casual relief rule over the lost disc rule just because casual relief places the lie closer to where the disc actually landed. That kind of decision may make sense intuitively, but we�re bound to play the game by the rules and not by our intuition.


The RC sorts out which [rules] take priority to guide the player. Lost disc is last on the priority sequence with mando, OB and 2m (if active) being ahead of lost. The RC has indicated Casual relief is ahead of lost when a disc is known to have landed there.

It�s true that the PDGA rulebook contains rules that specify that mando and OB and 2M supersede lost.

But no rule exists � notwithstanding the RC�s Q&A guideline � that favors casual relief over lost disc (or vice versa), when a disc is lost in casual water.

Let�s look at what the rules actually say about this scenario, to see whether proponents of �play where it entered the water, no penalty,� or proponents of �stroke and distance for lost disc,� should prevail:


803.03F deems the disc at rest once it is floating or moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. This establishes the disc�s resting place (not its lie).

In the scenario, the disc �rolled into the water,� so we don�t know for sure whether the disc was touching the playing surface or suspended/floating above the playing surface, at the moment the disc was deemed to rest.

If the disc was on the IB playing surface when it came to rest, 803.03A locates the lie on the creekbottom where the disc rests, no penalty. (And casual relief is the thrower�s further option.)

If the disc was above the IB playing surface when it came to rest, 803.08A locates the lie on the creekbottom below the disc�s resting point, no penalty. (And casual relief is the thrower�s further option.)

[Yes, the lie and the score are the same, whether the disc came to rest on or above the playing surface. The difference is in whether 803.07B (interference), which governs discs on the playing surface, can replace the disc once the water sweeps it away � a concept that MIGHT give �casual relief� proponents some traction, if you buy the argument that the actual unfound disc is irrelevant because a virtual replacement disc is at the deemed-to-rest place. That�s another can of worms.]

Meanwhile 803.11 (lost disc) says if the disc can�t be located within three minutes after the thrower arrives where it was last seen � which is what happened in the scenario � the disc is lost and the lie is the thrower�s prior lie. 1 penalty stroke.


Two contradictory lie location rules (803.03A/803.08A, and 803.11) are telling us to locate the lie and score the play two different ways. Each rule has equal force. No language in either rule says that either rule supersedes the other.

An interesting pickle.

And we haven�t even addressed the fact that a thrown disc may come to rest more than once. In the scenario, the disc is deemed at rest when it enters the water, and then it almost certainly comes to rest somewhere downstream. The PDGA rulebook contains no language favoring one rest over another, to locate the lie. So, for example, if there�s reasonable evidence that the stream swept the disc off the course and it eventually must have come to rest OB, then instead of an unresolved conflict between 803.03A/803.08A and the lost disc rule, you�d have an unresolved conflict between 803.03A/803.08A and the OB rule. And if the OB rule were to win that conflict, the thrower gets 1 penalty stroke and he either rethrows (i.e., he gets the same stroke and distance result as lost disc) or he must mark his lie in midstream at the point where the disc left the course.


Is all this stuff absurd? OF COURSE IT IS! Disc golfers have been losing discs in IB water for 40 years. The PDGA has had plenty of time to provide rules that give a single clear mark and penalty in this fairly common scenario. It is absurd that those clear rules don�t yet exist.

cgkdisc
Nov 23 2010, 12:45 PM
"Lost Disc" is not in the Definition section of the rules. The lost disc rule says "...declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes..." which leaves the definition of what it means to "locate the disc" up for interpretation. There are decreasing levels of proof that your disc has been located:
1. Physically have possession of it
2. Seeing it including your "unique mark" on it
3. Seeing a disc that looks like yours
4. Reasonable proof it landed in a Course area governed with specific lie relocation rules
5. Reasonable proof it landed in a regular IB area

The RC has established the default definition of "locating your disc" at level 4 above with the specific wording in the OB rule. The extension to that level of "locating" would also apply to Casual Relief, crossing into the missed mando area and above 2m when in effect which are other course areas governed with specific lie relocation rules.

bruceuk
Nov 23 2010, 12:59 PM
"Lost Disc" is not in the Definition section of the rules. The lost disc rule says "...declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes..." which leaves the definition of what it means to "locate the disc" up for interpretation. There are decreasing levels of proof that your disc has been located:
1. Physically have possession of it
2. Seeing it including your "unique mark" on it
3. Seeing a disc that looks like yours
4. Reasonable proof it landed in a Course area governed with specific lie relocation rules
5. Reasonable proof it landed in a regular IB area

The RC has established the default definition of "locating your disc" at level 4 above with the specific wording in the OB rule. The extension to that level of "locating" would also apply to Casual Relief, crossing into the missed mando area and above 2m when in effect which are other course areas governed with specific lie relocation rules.

Unplayable lie also has a specific lie relocation rule and the player is the sole arbiter of whether a lie is unplayable or not, which effectively brings all the areas in set 5 directly into set 4.

james_mccaine
Nov 23 2010, 01:05 PM
Hoser, there is no more truth to your argument than there is in Chuck's. They are both plausible arguments, but there is no "truth" in these matters. Pointless to pretend otherwise.

A more rational approach is to view the decision itself, only the decision, not debate one or two levels above the decision. The only possible need to debate a level above the decision is to answer if the decision is plausible, not to disect the plausibility ad nauseum and then once your find some flaw, conclude that it is a fatal flaw. There is no fatal flaw, the decision is plausible and most importantly, it is reasonable and fair.

ERicJ
Nov 23 2010, 01:18 PM
The RC has indicated Casual relief is ahead of lost when a disc is known to have landed there.

I don't believe that statement is entirely true. The RC has singled out one very specific form of casual obstacle, i.e. water, which they feel deserves precedence over lost disc rulings.

There is no written rule justification for that without resorting to extrapolating an unofficial Q&A example.

If, as you write, Casual Relief is ahead of lost disc then Bruce's example of "lost in loose leaves" would absolutely qualify for relief over lost penalty as "loose leaves" are specifically written into the Casual Relief rule.

Perhaps the highest level principle in the sport is to throw from where it lies or as close to that point as possible, especially if no penalty is applied.

And yet we have a written rule that allows any player to declare they don't want to play from any resulting lie with zero justification required. :confused:


My gut says that in this case allowing a player to approximate a lie when you know about where the disc is is probably the most fair way to play.

But my brain says we have no current written rules that specifically allow that. And we do have current written rules that provide no exceptions for approximating a lie from a lost in-bounds disc.

cgkdisc
Nov 23 2010, 01:22 PM
Unplayable lie also has a specific lie relocation rule and the player is the sole arbiter of whether a lie is unplayable or not, which effectively brings all the areas in set 5 directly into set 4.
Nope. Because you don't have a lie yet to declare unplayable if you land in those special lie relocation areas in row 4. You cannot declare a disc landing in OB, casual relief, above 2m or missing a mando as unplayable until you have declared a lie under those rules. The Unplayable Lie rule at the moment requires a lie for the player to use it.

ERicJ
Nov 23 2010, 01:41 PM
"Lost Disc" is not in the Definition section of the rules. The lost disc rule says "...declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes..." which leaves the definition of what it means to "locate the disc" up for interpretation. There are decreasing levels of proof that your disc has been located:
1. Physically have possession of it
2. Seeing it including your "unique mark" on it
3. Seeing a disc that looks like yours
4. Reasonable proof it landed in a Course area governed with specific lie relocation rules
5. Reasonable proof it landed in a regular IB area

The RC has established the default definition of "locating your disc" at level 4 above with the specific wording in the OB rule. The extension to that level of "locating" would also apply to Casual Relief, crossing into the missed mando area and above 2m when in effect which are other course areas governed with specific lie relocation rules.

I find it admirable the extent to which you're willing to go to pull up indirect rules and attempt to define the undefined with the most liberal possible interpretation... all to justify a "ruling" which by following the most applicable rule is a pretty open and shut case.

Occam's razor... anyone?

Go up to 100 tournament players and ask them what it means to "locate" your disc. How many of them come back with an answer that is anywhere close to "Reasonable proof it landed in a Course area governed with specific lie relocation rules"?

If the "lost disc" were defined in the Rulebook Definitions section would you really write: "Lost Disc: A disc for which no reasonable proof exists that it landed in a course area governed with specific lie relocation rules"?

I think the verbiage in the OB rule that you're referencing is this: "In order to consider the disc as out-of bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B."

I believe the purpose of that wording is to simply establish the disc is not in-bounds. Not to locate the disc for the purpose of marking it's lie in OB territory.

ERicJ
Nov 23 2010, 01:44 PM
Go up to 100 tournament players and ask them what it means to "locate" your disc. How many of them come back with an answer that is anywhere close to "Reasonable proof it landed in a Course area governed with specific lie relocation rules"?

Go up to 100 TD's or Certified Officials... and ask that same question....

bruceuk
Nov 23 2010, 01:44 PM
Nope. Because you don't have a lie yet to declare unplayable if you land in those special lie relocation areas in row 4. You cannot declare a disc landing in OB, casual relief, above 2m or missing a mando as unplayable until you have declared a lie under those rules. The Unplayable Lie rule at the moment requires a lie for the player to use it.

That last sentence is simply not the case, this messageboard is littered with examples of times a player can declare unplayable without going and looking for their disc, mostly from you defending the unplayable lie rule's stroke and distance option (which I agree with you on BTW). :)Here's just one (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1436437&postcount=42)

cgkdisc
Nov 23 2010, 01:55 PM
Nothing inconsistent here. A lie still has to first be declared under the rules for that special course area. But if the relocated lie is the same as where an unplayable option could be, then it's a toss up whether you call it unplayable or say OB. But you really can't also call a shot that's OB unplayable unless you choose to rethrow from the previous lie since both options are allowed for OB and unplayable. For example, a disc OB could not be marked up to 5m inbounds on the line of play following the unplayable rule without first taking the OB penalty to get the disc to the edge of the OB area where it last was IB. But it could be marked at the last point thrown and you could say you used the Unplayable rule or the OB rule to get there.

cgkdisc
Nov 23 2010, 02:03 PM
I find it admirable the extent to which you're willing to go to pull up indirect rules and attempt to define the undefined with the most liberal possible interpretation... all to justify a "ruling" which by following the most applicable rule is a pretty open and shut case.
Just shows the internal consistency behind the intepretations being made. If casual relief areas were not treated the same as OB using the reasonable proof a disc landed in there, then the rule inconsistency would be much more troublesome.

ERicJ
Nov 23 2010, 02:24 PM
Just shows the internal consistency behind the intepretations being made. If casual relief areas were not treated the same as OB using the reasonable proof a disc landed in there, then the rule inconsistency would be much more troublesome.

And so your consistent position on a disc that cannot be precisely located, or "lost" in the common parlance, in a pile of fairway loose leaves where the group saw it enter is eligible for casual relief and no lost disc penalty, correct?

cgkdisc
Nov 23 2010, 02:40 PM
This would be consistent with that interpretation and also troublesome. Of course, it would have to be a big pile where players couldn't find it within 3 minutes and still feel there was reasonable proof the disc went into that now disassembled pile. It has already been brought up and discussed within the RC that a distinction needs to be made between casual relief areas versus casual relief objects like leaves and detached twigs. Casual relief areas might have to be identified by the TD and would have certain rules such as the one being discussed regarding a disc not found. Otherwise, groups of casual objects would not be covered by that area rule. Of course, the TD could define that big pile of leaves over there as a casual area and then it would be covered with the casual area rule.

The interesting extension used in Minnesota that hopefully wouldn't be needed in south Texas is dealing with snow as a casual water or not. It makes no sense for regular play when the ground is covered with snow. But in unsanctioned leagues we play no lost disc penalties and the disc is played where the group thinks it is. For sanctioned play, we get a waiver that allows us to use the old lost disc rule with the primary difference from unsanctioned play being the one throw penalty. We sometimes define icy patches all over the course as LOP casual relief areas when the conditions merit. It's not a default rule.

ERicJ
Nov 23 2010, 02:51 PM
So will this distinction between casual objects and casual areas be made in the 2011 rules update?

Will the liberal definition of "lost disc" be included in the 2011 rules update? Will any definition of "lost disc" be included? Apparently a disc you cannot locate is not specific enough.

Will the order of precedence of the rules application be more clearly specified in the 2011 rules update?

ERicJ
Nov 23 2010, 03:01 PM
IMO, the troublesome part was saying that a disc that was in bounds and could not be found was able to have its lie approximated. But that's obvious by now.

Will the 2011 rules update be changing 803.11 from "Lost Disc" to "Disc for which there is not enough reasonable evidence to establish an approximate lie in an area other than those covered by specific lie relocation rules"? :p

cgkdisc
Nov 23 2010, 03:04 PM
None of those will be in the 2011 rulebook that I'm aware of. But those items may be covered in the Q&As once those are offically made legal. The thing is, the RC feels some of these are already clear readings of the rules as they are. The Q&A just helps the player understand the logical sequence to get there using the existing rules as written.

cgkdisc
Nov 23 2010, 03:06 PM
It's not the Lost Dis rule that needs to be changed, it's defining what it means to "locate" your disc. If your disc cannot be located, then you use the Lost disc rule but not until then.

ERicJ
Nov 23 2010, 03:15 PM
The thing is, the RC feels some of these are already clear readings of the rules as they are. The Q&A just helps the player understand the logical sequence to get there using the existing rules as written.

This is not an example of already clear readings of the rules:

1. OB rule includes phrasing where a disc lost in it is treated as OB and not Lost based on reasonable proof.

2. Casual relief rule 803.05C does not have that phrasing, i.e., where casual rules are still used if disc lost in it with reasonable evidence.

3. Rule of Fairness provides that principles embodied and logical extension, etc. can be applied when similar situation not covered in writing.

4. Thus, the OB/Lost scenario can be inferred as extending to disc lost in casual water using the Fairness principle which is also what the RC stated in their Q&A on the topic.

cgkdisc
Nov 23 2010, 04:00 PM
You may not "feel" it but I said the RC "feels" the rulings are clear.

Hoser
Nov 23 2010, 06:17 PM
The famous behavioral scientist B. F. Skinner once ran an experiment where he put a mouse into a big cage. The mouse built a nest and made itself at home. Skinner added a second mouse. The two mice swiped at each other a couple of times, then each claimed a territory in the cage.

Skinner added more mice, one at a time. Each new mouse scuffled with the natives, then everybody re-established their territory � smaller, per mouse, each time.

Skinner kept adding more mice. The skirmishes got heated, with many mice each defending less and less space. The more crowded the cage got, the more schizoid the mice behaved.

Finally the pressure reached a tipping point. When Skinner added one more mouse, all the mice rushed to the center of the cage and huddled in a quivering, psychotic pile, leaving bare space all around the edges of the cage.

If just ONE MORE of us argues with Chuck on this thread . . . .

davei
Nov 24 2010, 06:11 PM
What if we didn't have any penalties for throwing? Say we just count one stroke for each throw. In order to proceed after a throw, the disc must establish a playable in-bounds lie.

So, in this scenario, if you miss a mando, go OB, get lost, or otherwise do not put the disc in play such that it can be marked, you throw again from the previous lie. No penalty, but you count the throw as a stroke.

Casual relief could not be automatically assumed, but if you didn't like your lie, you could always throw again from the previous lie.

Casual relief could be specifically designated for certain named areas, with designated drop zones for those. Simplicity is almost always better than complexity for rules.

You could take as many mulligans or practice strokes as you like for the mere cost of one stroke each.

I think Hoser was saying something like this.

cgkdisc
Nov 24 2010, 06:53 PM
DODG (Do-Over Disc Golf). Someone at Vibram might like that. It's the buncr rule USDGC circa 2008-2009 used everywhere. While it's intrinsically "fair" as a format, it would likely slow up the game a fair amount, especially on hilly courses. If the disc lands in normal inbounds and not rethrow area like OB or missed mando, can the player still call a rethrow or would they have to use the current Unplayable Lie rule and get the penalty shot and get to rethrow?

Hoser
Nov 24 2010, 09:45 PM
Dave! Fresh thinking from geezer territory!

I forget what year it was � maybe 1985? � when you won the World Open Pro Doubles with a -16 score on the final round in soaking rain. That was one of two incredible feats I witnessed that day. The second was that rain had flooded parts of the course, including submerging one green all the way up to mid-basket. The TD decided: play where it lands on that hole, no relief. If you missed your putt or laid up close to that basket, you had to wade in, feel around in the knee-deep water to find your disc, and throw from there. It worked.

As you have realized while coming up with your idea in Post #83, there are many ways that �work� to play disc golf.

I�ve done an in-depth analysis of the nine PDGA rulebooks (1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2011), tracking the development of individual rules � for example, the mando rule, the casual relief rule, the lost disc rule � over a thirty-year period, and it�s amazing how many changes the PDGA has made in these rules, trying to create good ways to play disc golf.

(If you want to see my analysis, click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com) to go to our SnapChing website, and leave your email address on our �Contact Us� page. I�ll send it to you.)

Your �no penalty� approach is interesting, and shows a lot of creative thought. It�s refreshing to see that kind of innovation (no pun intended) from a guy who has been playing disc golf forever.

The basic difference between your idea and the SnapChing game that Matt Metcalf and I have invented, is that SnapChing�s basic concept is:


You score 1 for each disc release. If your stance is wrong, you play the same lie again. If your stance is correct, your lie advances, except if you land OB or cross a no-fly line (= miss a mando), you play the same lie again. And there are no penalties at all (except DQ) in SnapChing.


Dave I think you�d really enjoy looking at our SnapChing website. There�s a lot of good stuff there for you to gnaw on. (At our age, we gotta keep our teeth healthy.)


Mike :)

davei
Nov 25 2010, 11:06 AM
DODG (Do-Over Disc Golf). Someone at Vibram might like that. It's the buncr rule USDGC circa 2008-2009 used everywhere. While it's intrinsically "fair" as a format, it would likely slow up the game a fair amount, especially on hilly courses. If the disc lands in normal inbounds and not rethrow area like OB or missed mando, can the player still call a rethrow or would they have to use the current Unplayable Lie rule and get the penalty shot and get to rethrow?


Yes, any time. This might have to be modified or not to not slow play up too much as you have noted. Most times, the thrower should know immediately if his inbounds lie is to his liking or not. However in dense underbrush or very hilly terrain, problems might arise.

The rule could be modified to make the choice immediately or suffer the consequences of a bad lie.

davei
Nov 25 2010, 11:19 AM
Dave! Fresh thinking from geezer territory!

As you have realized while coming up with your idea in Post #83, there are many ways that �work� to play disc golf.

Your �no penalty� approach is interesting, and shows a lot of creative thought. It�s refreshing to see that kind of innovation (no pun intended) from a guy who has been playing disc golf forever.

The basic difference between your idea and the SnapChing game that Matt Metcalf and I have invented, is that SnapChing�s basic concept is:


You score 1 for each disc release. If your stance is wrong, you play the same lie again. If your stance is correct, your lie advances, except if you land OB or cross a no-fly line (= miss a mando), you play the same lie again. And there are no penalties at all (except DQ) in SnapChing.


Mike :)

Seems to me that it is basically the same. I would include all currently extant stance rules except the putting rule. I have a couple of issues there.
But, for stance violations, like SnapChing, no penalty, just re-throw with the stroke counted. Practice throws from anywhere, would be one throw. I wouldn't mess with the procedural rules until I had something better to replace them with. IE. scoring, substance abuse, unsportsmanlike conduct, playing the stipulated course, etc.

davei
Nov 25 2010, 12:28 PM
I could even see a rules scenario where you don't get a penalty, if you choose to not advance, but you do get a penalty if you choose to advance in a situation where you have an unplayable lie. Unplayable lie would be anything you take some kind of relief for not specifically named by the td. This could be lost disc, OB, missed Mandy, or in bounds and located but in a truly unplayable lie. If the player chose to advance and get a spot, he would also receive a penalty stroke.

DShelton
Nov 25 2010, 03:24 PM
The basic difference between your idea and the SnapChing game that Matt Metcalf and I have invented, is that SnapChing�s basic concept is:


You score 1 for each disc release. If your stance is wrong, you play the same lie again. If your stance is correct, your lie advances, except if you land OB or cross a no-fly line (= miss a mando), you play the same lie again. And there are no penalties at all (except DQ) in SnapChing.


Dave I think you�d really enjoy looking at our SnapChing website. There�s a lot of good stuff there for you to gnaw on. (At our age, we gotta keep our teeth healthy.)


Mike :)

Is every thread going to turn into a plug for Snapching? If so then I'll just send my questions to the RC and skip the board's debates that I've grown to love. It's like trying to ask questions about baseball and someone always saying, "You know, softball is so much better. Go to the website to find out."

Hoser
Nov 25 2010, 10:52 PM
Dave,

What are your issues with the putting rule?

And where do you think a player's stance should be oriented to, when playing around an artificial dogleg?

Mike

davei
Nov 26 2010, 07:59 AM
Dave,

What are your issues with the putting rule?

And where do you think a player's stance should be oriented to, when playing around an artificial dogleg?

Mike

I have two main issues both having to do somewhat with rules that are hard to enforce or call precisely. The 10 meter fantasy line is one issue. The other is jump putting.

For the 10 meter line, I don't think the rule should exist if there is no line. And, I think the line can be distances other than 10 meters, but it has to be clearly delineated.

For the jump putt rule, I think set shot putting should be allowed but not jump putting using the basketball shot analogy. In other words, I think it should be okay to putt and jump, (as part of a follow through), but not jump first, then putt. Just like a set shot in basketball (allowed) or a jump shot, (not allowed). Much easier to call and that is essentially what the players are doing now anyway.

As far as the stance orientation goes, I believe it should always be toward the target or next mandatory. What is an artificial dogleg, and what is not an artificial dogleg? That is the problem with any other rule. You can always choose a different direction to the next mandatory, but the stance should always be directly behind the mini or disc in a direct line to the next mandy or target. That is clear. Anything else gets murky and hard to call or enforce and becomes like the fantasy 10 meter line or jump putting.

Hoser
Nov 26 2010, 11:25 AM
Dave, I apologize. The �artificial dogleg� question was tricky, and I didn�t mean to trick you.

I was thinking about what makes playing a mando different from the normal process of playing past other obstacles. Lots of features of the course may interrupt a straight flight from your lie to the target and force you to choose a �dogleg� path that arcs to the left, to the right, or over or under. Among those path-diverting obstacles, mandos are special in two ways: (1) a mando is an artificial, rather than natural, dogleg; and (2) you aren�t allowed to cut the corner.

I used the term �artificial dogleg� to get you thinking about how similar a mando is to any other kind of dogleg . . . and to get you thinking about why disc golfers must orient their stance to the mando object when they play a mando, yet they must orient their stance to the target when they play any other kind of dogleg.

If we�re aiming to simplify rules, one of the first candidates may be the stance rule � a hugely important rule of the game because the instant of releasing a disc into flight is the critical instant in the game. Right now disc golf has four different kinds of stances:


� Stance in the fairway � the �standard� stance that touches the lie, touches nothing closer to the target than the lie, and doesn�t touch OB.

� Stance on a tee or drop zone � standard, except all supporting points must be on the tee or zone.

� Stance while playing a mando � standard, except orient the LOP toward the mando object instead of toward the target.

� Stance on a putt (less than 10M) � standard, except you can�t step forward on the follow-through.


Can these be whittled down to a single universal stance on all lies everywhere? And can this be done without dimming the fun or the skill challenge of the game?

It�s no problem to remove the mando exception. We already play every other dogleg with our stance oriented to the target. It�s no problem to play mandos that way, too.

It�s no problem to remove the tee/drop zone exception. Just allow the thrower�s �off� foot to touch beside or behind the tee or drop zone.

The stickiest issue is to remove the putt exception. You�d have to ditch the falling putt rule.

It has been 40 years since disc golfers have seriously debated the falling putt rule:


� Is the rule necessary at all? What would the game be like without it?

� Is 10M right, or should it be closer or farther? How important is it to draw a visible line, so players can know exactly where the distance limit is?

� How should the foul be defined? (�Demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole� hasn�t solved players� confusion.)

� Is there any other kind of stance modification, on any other kinds of throws from any other places on the course, that can improve the game?


It�s food for thought. You and I have both had lots of years to think about it, and we both want to improve the game�s rules, so I�m interested in your opinion.

But we�re diverging from the subject of this thread. Tell you what: let�s continue this by personal email instead. There�s plenty more I�d like to ask you, about your viewpoint on disc golf rules.


Mike :)