In a casual round last Saturday, one player was teeing off on hole 4. He very obviously attempted to throw, but when he swung his arm, his disc got loose, flipped up slightly, hit his arm, he then caught it after several bobbles. He never moved off the tee. After we stopped laughing and allowed him to throw again, we wondered what was the proper call.

Was this really a throw? And if it was, did he interfere with his own throw?

We decided that his actions did not change the position of the disc, or result in a different lie, and therefore, was not a projection of the disc. If no throw, no interference.

YMMV

Dave,

Is this a trick question? Even though you started your post with "In a casual round...", I am assuming that you want to know others comments based on the PDGA Rules.

That being said, if it was in a PDGA event, sometime shortly after I would have stopped laughing, I would have ruled it a throw.

Even though the disc ended back up on the tee, a thrown disc that hits a tree close to the tee box, and rolls back and stops on the tee would (should) be counted as a throw.

I would pass on the thrower interfering with the shot, though. It reads to me that the thrower may have been an old Guts player, and was acting on instinct to catch the disc. Regardless, I would have thought it to be unintentional interference, and the poor guy would have to take a stroke anyway and suffer the barbs from his group anyway, let's not drive the poor guy into the ground!

I think the Q&A can shed a little light here:

"An alternative is to consider that the throw begins when movement of the disc in the intended direction begins. Under that interpretation, a disc dropped or knocked out before or during a backswing does not count as a throw. The rules committee prefers this more forgiving interpretation."

Dave, you did not indicate (or I'm obtuse) whether this occurred during the backswing or in forward swing.

Interesting questions. As to whether it is a throw, I don't think there is a "right" answer as it just seems like a group call on whether there was "propulsion of the disc." Since that standard is vague (and I understand why it is), it ultimately depends on all those intangibles that go into a group decision.

As to interference, it seems like a lot of lawyering to call it interference, as it was his own disc (excludes A) and it would be a stretch IMO to argue he consciously altered the course of the disc (excludes C). B does not apply.

If it's a throw, then there would have to be interference. The question would have to be if it was considered intentional or not. This would have to be determined by the group.

If it's a throw, then there would have to be interference. The question would have to be if it was considered intentional or not. This would have to be determined by the group.

Well, if it is not considered intentional, I'm not seeing how it is interference under the rules.

If it's a throw, then there would have to be interference. The question would have to be if it was considered intentional or not. This would have to be determined by the group.If he had been playing with Jon and I it definately would not be a throw. We have always played that if the disc is in your possession and has not hit the ground, you have not thrown it yet, even if you did throw it and hit a tree and caught it on the bounce back! :D

I think your answer is in the definitions of the rules where throw is defined to be the intentional projection of the disc more than two meters towards a target, unless they changed that definition while I was not paying attention.

If he had been playing with Jon and I it definately would not be a throw. We have always played that if the disc is in your possession and has not hit the ground, you have not thrown it yet, even if you did throw it and hit a tree and caught it on the bounce back! :D

I think your answer is in the definitions of the rules where throw is defined to be the intentional projection of the disc more than two meters towards a target, unless they changed that definition while I was not paying attention.

There are two definitions I believe. One that incorporates the 2M is a practice throw when you are not on your lie. The other pertains to when you are on your lie, (or tee I assume). In the second case, it would be any distance and any direction by my reading. This actually brought up another case, where the thrower was on the tee with two discs and tossed one back to his bag less than 2M. I believe, because the tee is the lie, this could be considered a shot. I don't think anyone would call it, but they could, I think.

Dave,

Is this a trick question? Even though you started your post with "In a casual round...", I am assuming that you want to know others comments based on the PDGA Rules.

That being said, if it was in a PDGA event, sometime shortly after I would have stopped laughing, I would have ruled it a throw.

Even though the disc ended back up on the tee, a thrown disc that hits a tree close to the tee box, and rolls back and stops on the tee would (should) be counted as a throw.

I would pass on the thrower interfering with the shot, though. It reads to me that the thrower may have been an old Guts player, and was acting on instinct to catch the disc. Regardless, I would have thought it to be unintentional interference, and the poor guy would have to take a stroke anyway and suffer the barbs from his group anyway, let's not drive the poor guy into the ground!

Yes, I do want feedback. Your example of bouncing off a tree and landing back on the tee is interesting. In my case, the disc was not projected any where, although the player did try, and the lie was not changed, as the rules read. In your case, the disc was projected, but the lie didn't change either. That seems to indicate, (by my reading of the rules), that it wasn't a shot.

There are two definitions I believe. One that incorporates the 2M is a practice throw when you are not on your lie. The other pertains to when you are on your lie, (or tee I assume). In the second case, it would be any distance and any direction by my reading. This actually brought up another case, where the thrower was on the tee with two discs and tossed one back to his bag less than 2M. I believe, because the tee is the lie, this could be considered a shot. I don't think anyone would call it, but they could, I think.

You are correct; if a player is standing at their lie and toss a disc any distance, it is a competitive throw (even if they toss it less than 2m to their bag). I have overheard that this scenario might occurred and been called by some touring pros doing this very thing from the tee box, but it might just be rumor.

In your case, the disc was projected, but the lie didn't change either. That seems to indicate, (by my reading of the rules), that it wasn't a shot.

I haven't quite figured out where from the rules you get this reading.

I believe the lie has changed. Before his throw & catch, the players lie was defined by 803.02A:
Play shall begin on each hole with the player throwing from within the teeing area. When the disc is released, at least one of the player's supporting points must be in contact with the surface of the teeing area, and all the player's supporting points must be within the teeing area. If a tee pad is provided, all supporting points must be on the pad at the time of release, unless the director has specified a modified teeing area for safety reasons. If no tee pad is provided, all supporting points at the time of release must be within an area encompassed by the front line of the teeing area and two lines perpendicular to and extending back three meters from each end of the front line. The front line of the teeing area includes the outside edges of the two tee markers.

After his throw & catch, the lie is then defined by 803.08A, with the player's hand being the 'other object on the course':
If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it.

The latter lie (marked by a mini) is indubitably different from the former, which is marked by either a tee pad or an imaginary rectangle defined in the rule.

IMHO, intentional interference (if he performed a willful action to make the catch) is also germane.

I believe the lie has changed. Before his throw & catch, the players lie was defined by 803.02A:


After his throw & catch, the lie is then defined by 803.08A, with the player's hand being the 'other object on the course':


The latter lie (marked by a mini) is indubitably different from the former, which is marked by either a tee pad or an imaginary rectangle defined in the rule.

IMHO, intentional interference (if he performed a willful action to make the catch) is also germane.

He was on the tee pad, so even if the lie above ground were taken into account, the mark directly below would still be the tee pad. This would hold true even if you wanted to say it was a specific spot on the tee afterward. That specific spot was included beforehand, so no change, theoretically.

I haven't quite figured out where from the rules you get this reading.

This comes from the definitions of throw and practice throw.

He was on the tee pad, so even if the lie above ground were taken into account, the mark directly below would still be the tee pad. This would hold true even if you wanted to say it was a specific spot on the tee afterward. That specific spot was included beforehand, so no change, theoretically.

Nope. Theoretically, his lie for his first shot is a planar quadrilateral bounded by the teepad (or as defined by 803.02A). The lie for his first shot is a point defined by 803.08A. Two extremely different animals.

ok....where is this mythical 2m rule? I do not remember a you get a 2m throw rule....maybe its me, I think there used to be a rule like that, but I am at work and dont have my old rule books to defend this argument.....

What?

Are referencing the rule that says the player gets up to 3m. behind the marked tee line to throw?

or are you talking about something else?

Jack:

Practice Throw:
During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters... A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2).

ok....where is this mythical 2m rule? I do not remember a you get a 2m throw rule....maybe its me, I think there used to be a rule like that, but I am at work and dont have my old rule books to defend this argument.....

Practice throw Definitions

Thanks, I forgot about the definition portion....been awhile since I had to read a rule book, and I was looking everywhere but the definitions, should have grabbed a book first instead of looking online...thanks for comments!

In that case this would be a stroke as it did "or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not,"...sux but its the rule.....

In that case this would be a stroke as it did "or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not,"...sux but its the rule.....

Where does this "or of any distance to a target" language come from?

Doesn't the decision hinge solely on the definition of throw:

Throw: The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie.

One could argue (as has been done here) that the disc never changed position. One could also argue that it was not propelled, as this usually prevents a dropped disc from being a throw.

At any rate, the official rules' criteria for a decision seems pretty clear; the decision depends on how that particular playing group interprets and applies the criteria.

Thanks, I forgot about the definition portion....been awhile since I had to read a rule book, and I was looking everywhere but the definitions, should have grabbed a book first instead of looking online...thanks for comments!

In that case this would be a stroke as it did "or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not,"...sux but its the rule.....

The disc didn't travel any distance. It was like whiffing on a golf shot. Seems like it should be a stroke, because he was obviously trying to throw, but the disc didn't go anywhere; toward the target or not. I can't find where he gets a stroke by my reading.

..... He very obviously attempted to throw, but when he swung his arm, his disc got loose, flipped up slightly, hit his arm........

YMMV

By this comment and the definition of the practice throw ( http://www.pdga.com/rules/800-definitions )
....During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player's lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie.....

By attempting to throw and the disc being loose flipped up slightly is loose, it is no longer in his hand, any DISTANCE, it can still be considered distance. The only way that it does not go ANY DISTANCE is by holding the disc, essentially the wiff component... so thus the reasoning behind the interpretation of the rule.

I mean it sux totally, but the way that the rule is worded it shold be enforced this way....Now in casual rounds it should be considered a drinakable offense, one in which the thrower should buy the first round.....

If this was his first time at the tee, or more specifically, if he had not thrown from that tee, then it can in no way be considered a practice throw. It is either a "throw" as defined in the rules, or it is not.

The disc didn't travel any distance. It was like whiffing on a golf shot. Seems like it should be a stroke, because he was obviously trying to throw, but the disc didn't go anywhere; toward the target or not. I can't find where he gets a stroke by my reading.

he gets a stroke by the intent of his actions. its not in the rulebook. he was trying to advanced his disc towards the target, thus his action is considered a valid throw.
now since it was a casual round i would say the penalty is an elephant walk to the womens tees.... :) and beers for everybody :) :)

and beers for everybody :) :)
The perfect penalty for any infraction (or absence of any infractions).

he gets a stroke by the intent of his actions. its not in the rulebook. he was trying to advanced his disc towards the target, thus his action is considered a valid throw.
now since it was a casual round i would say the penalty is an elephant walk to the womens tees.... :) and beers for everybody :) :)

Not necessarily true. According to the rules Q&A referenced earlier in the thread you can have an intent to throw but if you hit a tree and drop the disc on your BACKSWING it is NOT a throw, regardless of what the intent was.

im talking about the subject at hand. however your scenario would still be a judgment call within the group, as to where the person was in the act of throwing when he hit the tree....

I'd also say intent to throw has nothing to do with it. I've hit my disc on the bottom of the basket, and knocked it out of my hand on the bottom of the bucket. I insisted on taking a stroke at the time, but after a further look at the rules, and some other opinions, I'd say it wasn't a throw afterall.

"either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie"

The throw in question DID occur from the teeing area or lie, and said player had NOT already thrown competitively from the teeing area. For these reasons I think that the accidental does not qualify as a practice throw.

Also, I think it is much like whiffing in golf, or when you accidentally knock the ball off the tee for a practice swing....even though these rules don't apply to disc golf.

alright lets hold on there.....
"Practice Throw: During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player's lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie. Throws that are re-thrown in accordance with the rules are not practice throws. Provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3) are not practice throws. A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2)."

Practice Throw: During a round,(after 2-minute and the names are announced). the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target (this is any distance, intentional or not, it may/may not alter your location), intentional or not, which does not change the player's lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie (it doesn't matter where it occurs from, its still defined as a practice throw, this is afterall the definition of it), or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie. (this means that even if the player threw a disc they still can't do the preceeding because it is still defined as a practice throw)

So Shane, I am not sure where you are coming up with the notion that because they have not teed off it does not count.....it in fact does count as long as its after the rounds has started, and before the final score is asked.

Part of the definition of practice throw restated: "I only apply to throws which either happen at places which are not the tee or lie, or throws at the tee or lie, IF the player has already thrown from there (the ol second shot)"

So, lets change the scenario. The guy runs up on the tee pad. He reaches back and is now in the process of bringing his arm forwards as he makes that last step to plant and rip he trips on a leaf or branch or moisture or his own shoelaces and lands on his backside as the disc pops up into the air and falls on his face. Or, he saves some of his dignity by being able to catch the disc before it falls on his face. One could argue that all of the above comments still apply. He may have interferred by catching the disc before it falls on him. Why bring up this reductio ad absurdum? If you were going to stroke the first guy you have to stroke this guy. I would do neither.

Part of the definition of practice throw restated: "I only apply to throws which either happen at places which are not the tee or lie, or throws at the tee or lie, IF the player has already thrown from there (the ol second shot)"

Throw: The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie.

The disc did not change position from the teeing area. It was still in the teeing area.

So, if it doesn't fit the definition of throw and doesn't fit the definition of practice throw as it didn't travel any distance toward the target, what is it, other than a cause to laugh. Is this the same as running on to the tee pad and tripping and having the disc come loose from your grip and landing on you as you lie sprawled on the tee?

I always consider if there was "intentional activity" or not to propell a disc at the target. No intent: no problem.

The whole intention thing seems to be contrary to the rules and their associated Q&A document. They way I read the pertinent sections, if you are intending to make a throw, but the disc slips out on the backswing, drops straight down behind you, & miraculously rolls 20 feet forward, a throw has not happened. On the other hand, If you abort an armswing mid-stream (therefore NOT intending to make a throw) but it comes out anyway & flies anemically 20 feet down the fairway, a throw HAS happened.

The way it's been enforced here is that if the disc makes a forward motion towards the front of the tee pad, crosses the line of the front of the tee pad it is a throw. It doesn't matter if it hits something and comes back towards and past the tee pad.

The way to think of it is like this.

What would have been the ruling if the tree had not existed and the disk continued to fly?
What would have been the ruling if the disc would have flown back over the thrower's head and landed three feet to the left and back of the tee pad?

Both are counted as throws. The fact that he caught the disc is accidental interference (which I wouldn't count against him, most people naturally do the catch thing without thinking of it) which means the the disc is dropped at that point, on the tee pad.

The way it's been enforced here is that if the disc makes a forward motion towards the front of the tee pad, crosses the line of the front of the tee pad it is a throw.

Still no good. You could stand 3m behind "the line of the front of the tee pad it is a throw", griplock the ish out of one, have it fly 350 feet, and never have it clear the line (extended). No way that's not a throw.

Still no good. You could stand 3m behind "the line of the front of the tee pad it is a throw", griplock the ish out of one, have it fly 350 feet, and never have it clear the line (extended). No way that's not a throw.

Good point. Then we have to go to the definitions:

Throw: The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie.
(Notice I'm not using the Practice throw definition. Since this is the first throw from that lie, the practice throw rule does is not used.)

How do objects change their position? They move.

Next, the rule has been interpreted so that if there is interference from behind the thrower which knocks the disc out of the hand of the thrower before he can cause the disc to leave his hand, then it is not ruled a throw.


Thus, the disc has changed it's position by the fact that it traveled over a distance and time to result in it's displacement from the thrower's hand back to the thrower who, instead of moving like most people, caught the disc, thus disturbing it's flight path. The disc also left the thrower's hand without being interfered with by any object behind the thrower.

OK, so far so good.

Now interference.

803.07 says:

A. A thrown disc that hits another player, spectator, or animal shall be played where it comes to rest. A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected or was caught and moved shall be marked as close as possible to the point of contact, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.

Since the disc was thrown as per our explanation above, the disc WAS interfered with, though IMO unintentionally.

In conclusion, it was a throw that counts and is marked on the tee pad where it was caught.


Ouch!!!! Now my head hurts.