DShelton
Aug 07 2010, 10:57 AM
I was reading the latest Rules School and I have a few questions.

Since when are we required to mark our lie if the back edge of a disc is off the ground?


Also, the book specifically states the the only time you do not mark your lie on the line of play is while playing a mando, so why are they saying you can mark the lie on the line of your intended flight path?

cgkdisc
Aug 07 2010, 12:31 PM
The RC reviewed this write-up for a few months now and support the content as written.

krupicka
Aug 07 2010, 01:40 PM
So how many rule books do we have? PDGA Official Rules, Rules Q&A, Competition Manual, and now randomly posted Rules School articles. Might as well add message board lore to that list while we are at it.

Not that anyone has the guts to call foot faults, but this makes it harder when there could be more than one line of play.

I'm sorry, usually the rules school articles are good, but when they create new rules (a disc must be flat on the ground to use as a marker) or push the limits of interpretation (line of play), this really does a disservice.

cgkdisc
Aug 07 2010, 03:21 PM
There will always be questions asked for interpretations between rulebook editions. The Rules School articles provide the thinking on these issues. Both of your concerns with this Rules School fall in the "benefit of the doubt" arena. If the disc is mostly on the ground but tipped up on a rock, players in your group are unlikely to call you for not using a mini. Likewise, a player will likely be given the benefit of the doubt if they release behind their mini instead of beside it in a wooded dogleg. The Rules School is about the specific interpretation as the RC sees it. The benefit of the doubt is used regularly in the field by default, whether right or wrong, on things like calling foot faults on fairway shots or putt jumping.

cgkdisc
Aug 07 2010, 03:26 PM
a disc must be flat on the ground to use as a marker)
Why shouldn't that be required? Using the thrown disc as the marker is a bonus option, not guaranteed. Since when would it be okay to not lay your mini flat on the playing surface? If it would be tipped up when a tree trunk is right in front of the disc, you get relief back from the trunk to mark the mini flat on the playing surface using the solid object relief rule.

DShelton
Aug 08 2010, 06:49 PM
Why shouldn't that be required? Using the thrown disc as the marker is a bonus option, not guaranteed. Since when would it be okay to not lay your mini flat on the playing surface? If it would be tipped up when a tree trunk is right in front of the disc, you get relief back from the trunk to mark the mini flat on the playing surface using the solid object relief rule.

And thus the slippery slope begins. Where in the rule book does it say that you get relief if you can't put your marker flat on the ground? Where in the rules does it say any of the things that was mentioned in the article?

We have a hard enough time trying to get people to stop using "non-rule" rules, now there are ""non-rule" rules added by our own Rules Committee to cloud everything up. No longer can we pull out our rule book and point at the rule, someone can just say, "It was in one of the Rules School discussions" and we would have no way of call the "rules" violation because we don't have the particular "rule" to cite.

I for one will call a foot fault on anyone marking on the line of the intended throw instead of the line of play AND I will refuse to mark my lie if the only reason is because the back edge of my marker is off the ground. I'll show you in the rule book on the course why I do these things. How can you support your views on the course?

Either put it in the rule book (and get a copy to every member) or don't mention it in the articles. Otherwise I will treat it like all other "non-rule" rules, it isn't a rule and will not be allowed.

cgkdisc
Aug 08 2010, 07:02 PM
You must not have read the actual rule closely. It says the mini marker must be placed "on the playing surface" (803.03A). Not on an angle, not just touching it but "on the playing surface." That can be taken to mean that whatever is marking the lie, whether mini or thrown disc, must be (flat as possible) "on the playing surface." If the thrown disc is not "on the playing surface", then a mini must be used. What conflict do you have with that specific wording that resulted in the clarifications used in the Rules School?

wsfaplau
Aug 08 2010, 07:54 PM
A disc or marker leaning against a tree or rock with an edge on the ground is touching the playing surface, just as the rules require. If the intent is the disc must be FLAT on the playing surface the rule should say FLAT on the playing surface. It doesn't. Therefore a leaning disc or marker is totally within the rules as written to be used as a marker.

Any other interpretation adds meaning to the rule that just isn't there.

cgkdisc
Aug 08 2010, 08:35 PM
Simple question: Are you supposed to place your mini (flat) ON the playing surface or is it okay to tip it up on an angle using a rock? No. That's what the RC has clarified with the meaning of what "ON the playing surface" means. Same words, just clarification for those who don't understand what placing a mini "on the playing surface" means. For example, if you get solid object relief behind a tree, you don't place the mini tipped up against the tree, you place it flat "on" the playing surface behind the tree on the LOP (unless of course you need to use the "flight line of play :-)

krupicka
Aug 09 2010, 09:23 AM
If a disc is touching the ground and leaning up against a tree, it is not suspended above the playing surface (per rules measurements, the distance would be 0). If it is not on the playing surface, then what is it?

cgkdisc
Aug 09 2010, 09:29 AM
The distance is not 0 since most of the disc is not "on" the playing surface.

krupicka
Aug 09 2010, 09:57 AM
The rules stipulate how to measure it. "...as measured from the lowest
point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it". (thus the distance is 0).

august
Aug 09 2010, 10:05 AM
just clarification for those who don't understand what placing a mini "on the playing surface" means.

And for those who may not know what "condescension" is, see the above example.

The "requirement" that the disc be flat on the playing surface is an extrapolation of the written rule. I have no problem with the rule being written so that it requires the disc to be flat on the playing surface. What I do have a problem with is people trying to convince me that the rules already require it, when I can plainly see for myself that it is not written that way.

Instead of massive efforts to convince people of things which are not true, a smaller more efficient effort should be taken to revise the rules.

dcmarcus
Aug 09 2010, 10:16 AM
Chuck,

If any part of the marker is on the playing surface then the marker is on the playing surface. Just like if any part of your foot is on the playing surface your foot is on the playing surface. What you are saying is just silly. If my disc is standing on edge in the grass, I'm certainly able to use it as the marker, at least according to the rules as they are now written. Or are you saying the "Rules School" is now part of the rules? If that is the case, shouldn't it be called something like "PDGA Official Rules Interpretations"?

"The distance is not 0 since most of the disc is not "on" the playing surface." What? How?

"That can be taken to mean"... this is a classic quote. It could be taken other ways too right?

This should be good.

cgkdisc
Aug 09 2010, 10:25 AM
The rules stipulate how to measure it. "...as measured from the lowest
point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it". (thus the distance is 0).
Measurement is only required for the 2 meter rule. Granted, the disc above playing surface rules need to be tweaked to cover marking when 2 meter rule not in effect.

cgkdisc
Aug 09 2010, 10:33 AM
Sounds like Clinton, "...depends on what the meaning of "is" is." The RC has simply clarified that the meaning of the word "on" in the rules is essentially flat on the playing surface. That should be intuitively obvious when you consider that the thrown disc usually lies flat on the ground for most throws and the mini is placed flat on the ground in front of it. That was true even before the 2002 rule which allowed the thrown disc to be used as a marker. Everything in the Rules School story makes sense from that simple clarification. The more liberal meaning of "on" that several of you are proposing does not fit as well with the rules.

rob
Aug 09 2010, 10:38 AM
And for those who may not know what "condescension" is, see the above example.

The "requirement" that the disc be flat on the playing surface is an extrapolation of the written rule. I have no problem with the rule being written so that it requires the disc to be flat on the playing surface. What I do have a problem with is people trying to convince me that the rules already require it, when I can plainly see for myself that it is not written that way.

Instead of massive efforts to convince people of things which are not true, a smaller more efficient effort should be taken to revise the rules.

I agree. What if you disc comes to rest directly behind a stick. I can't place my mini "on the playing surface" because it will not be "flat" on the "playing surface" due to the stick in the way and I can not move the stick because it extends in front of my lie. Are you saying the if the front edge of my disc comes to rest close to a stick/rock/tree root..., that we are not allowed to place a mini, but must play behind our disc? I do not see in the rules the word "flat" anywhere near the term "playing surface". Granted, most people place their minis pretty flat whenever possible, but if a player can balance his/her mini on edge, I'm not about to call an infraction. Laugh, be impressed- yes. What about leaves or pine straw. Both have a very uneven/ unlevel "playing surface". How could you place a mini "flat" on an uneven/unlevel "surface"? If a disc comes to rest on the same uneven area, how can we continue play, since it will be impossible to mark your lie, since it's not "flat" on the "playing surface".

cgkdisc
Aug 09 2010, 10:54 AM
Yes, the playing surface isn't always flat. But that doesn't mean that minis or discs can be tipped more than what the playing surface provides.

What if you disc comes to rest directly behind a stick. I can't place my mini "on the playing surface" because it will not be "flat" on the "playing surface" due to the stick in the way and I can not move the stick because it extends in front of my lie. Are you saying the if the front edge of my disc comes to rest close to a stick/rock/tree root..., that we are not allowed to place a mini, but must play behind our disc?
Casual relief allows you to place the mini behind the stick. If the stick is live/attached, solid object allows you to place the mini behind the stick. You place the mini in front of your disc, remove the disc, then slide the mini back so it's off the stick/rock.

dcmarcus
Aug 09 2010, 11:35 AM
Hey Chuck... please please answer these two questions clearly for me...

Is 'Rules School" official RC clarification and interpretation?

Is it your understanding that if a disc is standing up sideways in tall grass that the disc can't be used as the marker, with stance within 30 centimeters and on the line of play?

(Hint: These are yes/no answers)

Respectfully,

Daniel

cgkdisc
Aug 09 2010, 11:44 AM
Yes to both. The RC approves the content of the Rules School articles.

However, I'm working on a rules supplement for winter play where I hope the disc vertical in the snow gets approved to be used as a marker. Recognize that the current RC members "inherited" the speed of play rule for using the thrown disc as the marker that Mark Ellis developed for PW1999. It was never intended to be a marking "cheat" so much as just speed play. However, I think the subtle ramifications brought about by allowing the thrown disc to be used as a marker weren't fully realized when it was made official in 2002. So the fact that the option to use the thrown disc as the marker appears more restricted in this Rules School is maybe not surprising.

august
Aug 09 2010, 01:42 PM
I wish I could get an understanding of why there is this incredible aversion to revising the rules to read the way the RC means them to be read. Changing a word here or there can avoid the necessity of issuing interpretations that not everyone will be aware of and are not based on a reading of the rule.

This is one of the main reasons I do not play in tournaments anymore. The rules aren't followed and it is difficult to get a single interpretation on so many of them.

krupicka
Aug 09 2010, 01:58 PM
Maybe it's because the BOD has to approve rule changes and this is one way to get around that.

wsfaplau
Aug 09 2010, 05:32 PM
I need to apologize to the player at the Colorado State Championships last month who I gave a courtesy violation to.

F. Courtesy dictates that players who
smoke should not allow their smoke to
disturb other players. Smokers should
extinguish their cigarettes and carry their
cigarette butts to a trash can. Disposing of
cigarette butts by dropping them ON the
ground is littering.

He kept dropping his cigarette butts ON the ground and I thought that was a courtesy violation. I didn't understand why he kept saying "they aren't ON the ground, they are leaning up against the blades of grass".

Now I know that unless the cigarette butt is FLAT on the ground it isn't a courtesy violation.

So I apologize to you.

veganray
Aug 09 2010, 05:36 PM
I need to apologize to the player at the Colorado State Championships last month who I gave a courtesy violation to.

F. Courtesy dictates that players who
smoke should not allow their smoke to
disturb other players. Smokers should
extinguish their cigarettes and carry their
cigarette butts to a trash can. Disposing of
cigarette butts by dropping them ON the
ground is littering.

He kept dropping his cigarette butts ON the ground and I thought that was a courtesy violation. I didn't understand why he kept saying "they aren't ON the ground, they are leaning up against the blades of grass".

Now I know that unless the cigarette butt is FLAT on the ground it isn't a courtesy violation.

So I apologize to you.

http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-8769.gif

cgkdisc
Aug 09 2010, 06:02 PM
Too bad the RC is missing your humorous exhange... but they are ON the clock (uncomfortable whether flat or not) working ON (definitely flat humor) the next Rules update.

krupicka
Aug 09 2010, 06:32 PM
The problem with a requirement for a disc and/or marker to be flat on the ground to be used as a marker is that there are many cases (e.g. high grass, casual water) where it is impractical/impossible to have a mini flat on the ground (unless one carries 20 lb. minis on them).

DShelton
Aug 09 2010, 06:50 PM
Measurement is only required for the 2 meter rule. Granted, the disc above playing surface rules need to be tweaked to cover marking when 2 meter rule not in effect.

But the rules themselves say that you are only required to mark your lie if the disc is above the playing surface, ie. more than 0" above the surface. Not part but all of the disc.

Put it in writing or forget this interpretation of the rules.

cgkdisc
Aug 09 2010, 07:05 PM
The problem with a requirement for a disc and/or marker to be flat on the ground to be used as a marker is that there are many cases (e.g. high grass, casual water) where it is impractical/impossible to have a mini flat on the ground (unless one carries 20 lb. minis on them).
That's why it's not stated as a requirement. Most players attempt to place the mini as flat on the ground as possible. If the rules actually required the mini to be flat, you are correct that heavier minis might be needed along with carrying a hammer.

cgkdisc
Aug 09 2010, 07:10 PM
But the rules themselves say that you are only required to mark your lie if the disc is above the playing surface, ie. more than 0" above the surface. Not part but all of the disc.
The RC has already admitted in the Q&A on discs below the playing surface that the rules do not directly address the issue. However, as stated in this Rules School the nearest applicable rule (using Fairness 803.01F) is the "disc above the playing surface" rule. So for consistency, a disc not flat on the playing surface is to be marked the same way whether fully above it, tipped up with one edge on the surface, knifed into it or in a hole fully below the playing surface. That's consistency for you and it follows the written rules.

exczar
Aug 09 2010, 07:11 PM
Forgive me for not reviewing the whole thread before I posted this, but if the part of the disc that is farthest away from the target is on the playing surface, or is considered on the playing surface, than no mini marker is necessary. However, if said point on the disc is not on the playing surface, then a mini must be used to mark the lie.

Does this pretty much get it?


And geez, throwing a cigarette butt that lands on grass is not considered a courtesy violation because it is not on the GROUND?!? Wow, and some think I nitpick too much with the Rules!

august
Aug 10 2010, 09:41 AM
Forgive me for not reviewing the whole thread before I posted this, but if the part of the disc that is farthest away from the target is on the playing surface, or is considered on the playing surface, than no mini marker is necessary. However, if said point on the disc is not on the playing surface, then a mini must be used to mark the lie.

With all due respect, this is just more extrapolation. In reviewing "marking the lie" and "disc above the playing surface" (803.03 and 803.08) one can see that the detail you describe above is not written or inferred.

The tongue-in-cheek comment about the ciggies used the RC's own absurd interpretation of the word "on" to mean "flat" in an attempt to illustrate the aforementioned absurdity.

davei
Aug 10 2010, 02:10 PM
With all due respect, this is just more extrapolation. In reviewing "marking the lie" and "disc above the playing surface" (803.03 and 803.08) one can see that the detail you describe above is not written or inferred.

The tongue-in-cheek comment about the ciggies used the RC's own absurd interpretation of the word "on" to mean "flat" in an attempt to illustrate the aforementioned absurdity.

I think Bill's idea works and possibly should be included in the rule book. I can see that there needs to be a point on the ground which is a visible forward limit for foot placement, (as well as side to side).

wsfaplau
Aug 10 2010, 02:16 PM
Forgive me for not reviewing the whole thread before I posted this, but if the part of the disc that is farthest away from the target is on the playing surface, or is considered on the playing surface, than no mini marker is necessary. However, if said point on the disc is not on the playing surface, then a mini must be used to mark the lie.

Does this pretty much get it?


And geez, throwing a cigarette butt that lands on grass is not considered a courtesy violation because it is not on the GROUND?!? Wow, and some think I nitpick too much with the Rules!

Bill, maybe you should read the whole thread before commenting

august
Aug 10 2010, 02:48 PM
I think Bill's idea works and possibly should be included in the rule book. I can see that there needs to be a point on the ground which is a visible forward limit for foot placement, (as well as side to side).


I would have no problem with revising the book to provide for that; I think we need that kind of detail to avoid misinterpretation.

veganray
Aug 10 2010, 02:52 PM
I think Bill's idea works and possibly should be included in the rule book.

Emphasis added to convey truth. ALL 'interpretations' to the rules that contradict what they plainly say in the common tongue must be explicitly codified in the official rulebook as revisions (after undergoing the review & approval process that our Policies, Procedures, & Bylaws mandates), not haphazardly disseminated via grainy YouTube video & message board chatter by some pathologically self-important dude who thinks he can run an end-around outside of due process & rewrite the rules of the game to meet his personal whim & then use his FSM-only-knows-how-he-earned-it status as an 'expert' to attempt to shove them down the throats of the players under the dubious (and carefully worded to allow for escape room) blessing of almost-legitimate authority.

cgkdisc
Aug 10 2010, 02:59 PM
Better solution would be to always require marking your lie with a mini like it was before 2002. Option to use thrown disc as your marker is what's causing the issues discussed in the thread.

veganray
Aug 10 2010, 03:03 PM
Option to use thrown disc as your marker is what's causing the issues discussed in the thread.

Seems to me like something else is causing the issues discussed on this thread.

DShelton
Aug 10 2010, 05:28 PM
Seems to me like something else is causing the issues discussed on this thread.

Yes, like going totally against what 803.03B and 803.04A(1) state in the Rule Book, with no mention of a revision in the near future to reflect these changes, with only a mention that the RC approved the content of the article, not written it themselves. Add to that the condescending tone that is given to those of us who point out that what is being said goes against the above rules. Where's the RC to help clarify things?

august
Aug 10 2010, 06:19 PM
Better solution would be to always require marking your lie with a mini like it was before 2002. Option to use thrown disc as your marker is what's causing the issues discussed in the thread.

I think that's on the right track, but more fair to say that giving a website article the weight of case law in interpreting the written rule on using a thrown disc as your marker is the issue causing the debate at hand. I don't think it should be given such weight, especially if it contradicts a simple reading of the written rule.

august
Aug 10 2010, 06:53 PM
After reading this article again, it seems more that they are trying to define "disc above the playing surface" as opposed to what "on" the playing surface means. I see what they are saying and I give them credit and merit for it. However, I think it is equally intuitive to extend a line from the back edge of the disc on the rock in the diagram down to the playing surface and have that be the point behind which the player takes their stance using the thrown disc as the marker. I think if this is to be required as shown in the diagram, it needs to be codified in the rules. I don't feel that an explanatory article codifies the interpretation of a rule. The RC is a dedicated group of valued volunteers and I encourage them to write such details in the revised rules.

chains11864
Aug 10 2010, 08:05 PM
With the "flight line of play" being acceptable during play --- it is now impossible to foot fault almost EVER !!! Only stepping directly on the mini would be a foot-fault now.

If anyone says "Hey you stepped beside, left of, right of, in front of - etc" ...your mini, all you now have to do is say "I stepped in line with MY "flight line of play"" - regardless of what direction the disc is thrown, or where it ends up, no one can call you on a foot-fault. Even in the Rules School example - I could just say I was going to go over the tree line if I stepped way to the right of my mini...

Basically everyone has a free pass on fairway shots - just be with-in the 30cms of your mini ANYWHERE around it and you are legal - now you can just apply YOUR "flight line of play" to any situation. Looking at the Rules School diagram again, a person could actually step OVER their mini (in front of it) and throw down the fairway --- when called for a foot-fault they could just say their "flight line of play" was directly backwards (flip the arrow on the diagram 180 degrees) and the shot just went the wrong direction...

The IDEA of "flight line of play" makes sense, but it needs to be defined in more detail so it can be of use in actual play.

Just while typing this I thought of another example... If my lie is behind a large tree, and the actual "line of play" does not allow me to have a follow through or basically makes the shot very difficult --- I could just adjust MY "flight line of play" another direction to free up enough room to throw an easier shot.

Even using MY adjusted "flight line of play" to literally stand 90 degrees to the left of my mini to get that extra angle I needed to throw that 150 foot hyzer upshot - a nice run up / free to follow through / flatter ground etc...instead of having to "work" your disc to the preferred alleys, just line right up with them and call your own "flight line of play" - no rule broken at all.... It is not "cheating" - people throw 5 different ways from the same lie at any given time, so there is no "right" way, or direction, to throw.

I am glad that we do not have to go by that OLD rule anymore. Now, when looking at my mini from the OLD "line of play" - I will now choose to use a comfortable 50% of the mini, (imagine a 30cm thick letter U around the back of your mini), AND decide where the "line" goes through the mini AND choose where I plant my foot accordingly. Cool!

Really?

twig
Aug 11 2010, 05:32 AM
Seems to me the simplest solution is simply to require that the back edge of whatever is being used to mark (thrown disc or mini) must touch the playing surface. As Dave said, that visual reference is needed. Might even eventually lead to calling foot faults! As that is straightforward and simple, I don't like its odds of being codified.

As for the fairway LOP issue, I can think of several holes (3 of them at Castle Hayne in Wilmington NC alone, though one of those may have a mando) where you simply are not throwing toward the hole until at least 2 shots into playing it. And there's something very goofy about, say, pitching back to the fairway with your mini BEHIND you. But good luck to the person who can come up with a clean and workable implementation of fairway LOP. Anybody who thinks the players will figure it out just fine and do so in a FAIR and CONSISTENT manner really needs to get out more. :)

Frank

davei
Aug 11 2010, 07:28 AM
I would like to understand why the old rule for foot placement was bad. As Chains says, the new interpretation has problems. As far as I can tell, the only problem the old interpretation had was being aware. Even on horse shoe type holes, you still had to put your foot on an 11" line directly behind your mini toward the target or mandatory. So what if you have to throw sideways to get around a tree or building? It worked fine for me. The mini worked to keep me no closer to the pin or mandatory, and the 11" line had to have my foot on it at release. I don't see the problem, other than it looks weird if you don't know what's going on. The "solution" engenders more problems than it proposes to solve, IMO.

twig
Aug 11 2010, 07:53 AM
I would like to understand why the old rule for foot placement was bad. As Chains says, the new interpretation has problems. As far as I can tell, the only problem the old interpretation had was being aware. Even on horse shoe type holes, you still had to put your foot on an 11" line directly behind your mini toward the target or mandatory. So what if you have to throw sideways to get around a tree or building? It worked fine for me. The mini worked to keep me no closer to the pin or mandatory, and the 11" line had to have my foot on it at release. I don't see the problem, other than it looks weird if you don't know what's going on. The "solution" engenders more problems than it proposes to solve, IMO.

The issue there is that, as a practical matter, that eliminates the runup in those situations, since it's both harder to hit your mark AND harder to make the call in those cases, and the best rules are always those that are straightforward to follow AND enforce. My personal response to those who would argue for being able to runup in those situations (and yes, I do realize it CAN be done, but for even the best players that's very tough to do consistently legally) is, well, deal with it. The standstill shot is just as important to one's game as the fairway runup. And speaking practically, on these types of holes placement is much more important than an extra 20-30 feet anyway.

There is merit to the fairway (versus basket) LOP argument, and if someone can come up with a simple explanation, great. But it's not as if people aren't doing backwards/sideways stance shots now. They're just usually still throwing toward the basket. ;)

Frank

exczar
Aug 11 2010, 03:32 PM
There must be something here that is not sinking through to me.

Let me go through my logic and please make let me know what I am failing.

1) The part of the disc that is the farthest from the target is what defines the mark.

2) Rule 803.08A, "Disc Above the Playing Surface", "If a disc comes to rest above a playing surface...its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it."

3) Since the mark is defined by 1), then only that one part of the disc is relevant to establishing the mark, so 803.08A really only applies to that one part of the disc.

Yes, it would be nice if 803.08A was reworded to state "If the part of the disc that establishes the lie comes to rest above...", but to get to 3) from 1) and 2) is not that much of an extrapolation, is it?!?

cgkdisc
Aug 11 2010, 04:14 PM
1) The part of the disc that is the farthest from the target is what defines the mark.
Where do you read that? The mini is placed flat on the ground in front of the edge of the thrown disc closest to the pin, not farthest, regardless whether the thrown disc is flat on, above, below, tipped on or thru the playing surface. If the thrown disc is essentially flat on the ground and the player chooses to not use a mini, then the back edge of the thrown disc is the mark.

wsfaplau
Aug 11 2010, 04:18 PM
This "clarification" changes NOTHING. There is precedent showing this means nothing.

Recall the Memorial a few years ago. Feldberg hit a big, long clutch putt from his knees using a towel as a pad under his knee. A photo of his putt was posted on this website. It was pointed out that according to a RC posting under Rules Q&A that this was not allowed under the rules. PDGA ED Graham was quick to point out in this discussion forum that since it isn't in the rules it can't be enforced. The reasoning was along the lines of while the new interpretation was posted on like it hadn't been communicated to the members and people couldn't be expected to even know about it much less be required to follow a ruling like that.
(Note: I am paraphrasing Mr Graham's response and reasoning but I believe I am fairly representing his statement)

This is the same thing. Totally unenforceable.

No change.

august
Aug 11 2010, 06:14 PM
There must be something here that is not sinking through to me.

Let me go through my logic and please make let me know what I am failing.

1) The part of the disc that is the farthest from the target is what defines the mark.

2) Rule 803.08A, "Disc Above the Playing Surface", "If a disc comes to rest above a playing surface...its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it."

3) Since the mark is defined by 1), then only that one part of the disc is relevant to establishing the mark, so 803.08A really only applies to that one part of the disc.

Yes, it would be nice if 803.08A was reworded to state "If the part of the disc that establishes the lie comes to rest above...", but to get to 3) from 1) and 2) is not that much of an extrapolation, is it?!?

No. And I think I understand where you are coming from. In 1) above, I think what you mean is that when using the thrown disc as the marker, the part of the disc furthest from the target is the mark from which you take your stance on the line of play.

In 2) above, I have always understood the phrase "directly below it" to mean in the shadow of the suspended disc as best as possible, within the area on the playing surface as if it had landed on the playing surface.

I don't see that the rules currently require what the diagram says is required. I would give credence to an argument that the rock in the diagram is part of the playing surface and so, the disc would be as "on" the playing surface as it possibly could be. Simply extend a line down to the playing surface below from the back edge of the disc and play on.

exczar
Aug 11 2010, 06:21 PM
Where do you read that? The mini is placed flat on the ground in front of the edge of the thrown disc closest to the pin, not farthest, regardless whether the thrown disc is flat on, above, below, tipped on or thru the playing surface. If the thrown disc is essentially flat on the ground and the player chooses to not use a mini, then the back edge of the thrown disc is the mark.

D'oh! I gotta think about it some more - how about this:

If the part of the disc that is farthest from the target is in contact with the playing surface, then the disc may be used as the mark, otherwise, a mini must be used.

krupicka
Aug 11 2010, 06:32 PM
Splitting hairs here: If a disc is lying flat on pavement, the part of the disc that is farthest from the target will not be in contact with the playing surface. There is really no need to change the rules and the rules school article makes marking rules far more complicated than the rules really are. Changing the rules to justify the rules school article interpretation is really not necessary. Nothing is gained by it.

Things to ask before changing the rules:
Does it simplify the rules? No.
Does it address a habitual problem with playing by the rules? No.
Does it address a habitual problem with enforcing the rules? No
Does it make the rules more intuitive? Possibly on the intended flight path LOP, but the other issues it causes does not merit a change.

atlscott
Aug 12 2010, 03:26 AM
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19426&page=4

quote: Cgkdisc
"If there are leaves, the leaves should be cleared and the mini placed on the playing surface. That's what the rule says."

Huh?

cgkdisc
Aug 12 2010, 09:04 AM
Mini is to be placed "on the playing surface" in 803.03A. Loose leaves are defined as obstacles that can be moved in the casual relief rule 803.05C. If any part of a leaf is in front of the lie, then the mini would be slipped under those leaves onto the playing surface underneath the leaves. It's similar to snow which would be considered casual water. It can be moved so the mini is marked on the playing surface.

krupicka
Aug 12 2010, 09:07 AM
Ya know. I like this. Bury my mini under the leaves and make it impossible for anyone farther than six inches away to be able to tell if I foot fault. *sarcasm off*

cgkdisc
Aug 12 2010, 09:10 AM
The leaves behind your mini can be cleared. So it's even easier to see foot faults since you likely shouldn't be stepping on any upon release. :)

krupicka
Aug 12 2010, 09:43 AM
I guess I should be ready for the fall edition of the rules school which will come out and say that we must sweep off all of the leaves from our lie otherwise we won't be in contact with the playing surface and thus be violating 803.04.A.1.

krazyeye
Aug 12 2010, 01:17 PM
Carpet grass?

chainmeister
Aug 16 2010, 04:38 PM
I guess I should be ready for the fall edition of the rules school which will come out and say that we must sweep off all of the leaves from our lie otherwise we won't be in contact with the playing surface and thus be violating 803.04.A.1.

...but not if any of those leaves extend in front of your lie. 803.05.b

AviarX
Aug 16 2010, 10:45 PM
even while bearing in mind that many of today's conservative ideas were considered liberal 100 years ago, i fear the RC may have (unintentionally) expanded the riddle as to which kind of 'lie' is being referenced by the phrase 'marking the lie.'

if it were practical, it would be nice to have a rule which was easy to call and enforce. maybe technology will soon allow us to carry a 'virtual' marker -- which will light up the line behind the lie 30cm long and make it easy to read if you hit the mark. we might even make it the size of a base in baseball. the only thing confusing (at least to my quick reading so far) will be whether the LOP goes toward the target or toward the flight LOP... :confused:

gippy
Aug 17 2010, 09:43 AM
So how many rule books do we have? PDGA Official Rules, Rules Q&A, Competition Manual, and now randomly posted Rules School articles. Might as well add message board lore to that list while we are at it.

Not that anyone has the guts to call foot faults, but this makes it harder when there could be more than one line of play.

I'm sorry, usually the rules school articles are good, but when they create new rules (a disc must be flat on the ground to use as a marker) or push the limits of interpretation (line of play), this really does a disservice.

I have never even heard of the Rules School Articles. How are other players suppose to know this. I know for a fact if I haven't heard of it that many others havent either

wsfaplau
Aug 17 2010, 05:28 PM
Which is exactly why the information contained in them is unenforceable in tournament play until they update the rulebook.

cgkdisc
Aug 17 2010, 05:39 PM
Nothing new in the Rules School articles that can't be determined from the rulebook and/or has already been enforced at events.

jconnell
Aug 17 2010, 09:01 PM
Nothing new in the Rules School articles that can't be determined from the rulebook and/or has already been enforced at events.
Really, Chuck? I read the 803.03 "Rules School" article and find this image and accompanying text that says "B" is a legal way to mark a lie:
http://www.pdga.com/files/u5379/flight_line.jpg

I find absolutely nothing that can even be remotely "determined" from the current rulebook that makes "B" a legal mark. The phrase "flight line of play" appears nowhere in the PDGA's Official Rules of Disc Golf. In fact, rule 803.03 baldly states that the mini marker disc must be placed "on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, on the line of play, touching the thrown disc."

If this interpretation is already being enforced at PDGA events, then I really weep at the incompetent reading comprehension of those TDs and officials. There are plenty of grey areas in the rule book that can be argued until the cows come home, but calling mark "B" a legal mark based on the current rule book is absolutely creating rules out of thin air. If the intention of the rules committee is to allow for mark "B" to be a legal mark, then re-write the rulebook with the appropriate verbiage. Short of that, let's keep this mark "B" interpretation securely in fantasyland where it belongs.

cgkdisc
Aug 17 2010, 09:53 PM
It's my understanding that this flight line of play has been used on hole 5 at the USDGC for several years now so it's not unknown among the highest level of players and officials. I'm surprised that it's used there because in my reading of the rules, the only place it truly follows the rulebook is when the LOP cannot easily be determined such as in the woods with a winding fairway. If the LOP cannot be determined then the closest rule using Fairness (803.01F) could allow the Flight line of play. That's how you get there from the rulebook. But hole 5 is in the open. So the only thing I can see is that the USDGC must have been granted a waiver for using the flight line of play there. They have gotten waivers before on a variety of rulings.

jconnell
Aug 17 2010, 10:23 PM
It's my understanding that this flight line of play has been used on hole 5 at the USDGC for several years now so it's not unknown among the highest level of players and officials. I'm surprised that it's used there because in my reading of the rules, the only place it truly follows the rulebook is when the LOP cannot easily be determined such as in the woods with a winding fairway. If the LOP cannot be determined then the closest rule using Fairness (803.01F) could allow the Flight line of play. That's how you get there from the rulebook. But hole 5 is in the open. So the only thing I can see is that the USDGC must have been granted a waiver for using the flight line of play there. They have gotten waivers before on a variety of rulings.
Can we get independent verification that this is in fact how hole 5 at the USDGC is played or supposed to be played? Because in my three times playing the event, this never came up...not in the player handbook, not in the players' meeting, and certainly not in any group I played in. In fact, in one round, on hole 5, I seconded a stance violation call in which the player missed the line of play (the actual line of play, not the fantastical flight line of play) when running up on a fairway shot. There were no arguments involving the flight line of play and the player that made the call is someone I'd consider a "high level" player (1000-rated, sponsored by a prominent disc company). I also have a copy of the 2009 caddy book that has the "Official Ground Rules" listed and there is no mention of an exception to the line of play on hole 5 or any other.

As for applying the closest rule using 803.01F, what rule mentions anything remotely close to the "flight line of play"? The mandatory rule states an exception to the line of play definition, but it's pretty specific in that it applies only when the actual line of play passes on the incorrect side of the mandatory.

Honestly, I can't say I've played a course in which the line of play could absolutely not be determined in the strictest and most literal interpretation of the written rule. Even on a blind, heavily wooded, dogleg hole, it seems far more reasonable to me to try to determine as close an approximation as possible to the true line of play (decided upon by the group if need be) rather than pick an arbitrary, indeterminate, and unenforceable point from which to draw a new "line of play".

The idea of the "flight line of play" mark being legal is pure fantasy until the official rule book is revised to contain language that addresses it.

cgkdisc
Aug 17 2010, 10:37 PM
It was a member of the Rules Committee who has played in the USDGC that stated the flight line was used on hole 5. Just reporting where the reference came from. The rulebook does not state what to do if the LOP cannot be determined. So the Fairness approach I stated is a logical interpretation that could be valid on certain lies on certain wooded holes. I don't know if that's the RCs defense of the flight line of play, but it's one that is reasonable. Again, if the USDGC got a waiver, then that's all that matters in their case.

Frankly, I believe this flight line has crept in because it's easier for officials and players to watch a player for foot faults when you know they are running up to the mini from behind it rather than beside it which is what can happen when the LOP is used on wooded doglegs. So while the logic based on the rulebook is adequate when the LOP is not easily determined on certain wooded holes, it's a stretch to say it is supported by the rules as currently written as a general option available any time.

johnrock
Aug 18 2010, 09:42 AM
It was a member of the Rules Committee who has played in the USDGC that stated the flight line was used on hole 5. Just reporting where the reference came from. The rulebook does not state what to do if the LOP cannot be determined. So the Fairness approach I stated is a logical interpretation that could be valid on certain lies on certain wooded holes. I don't know if that's the RCs defense of the flight line of play, but it's one that is reasonable. Again, if the USDGC got a waiver, then that's all that matters in their case.

Frankly, I believe this flight line has crept in because it's easier for officials and players to watch a player for foot faults when you know they are running up to the mini from behind it rather than beside it which is what can happen when the LOP is used on wooded doglegs. So while the logic based on the rulebook is adequate when the LOP is not easily determined on certain wooded holes, it's a stretch to say it is supported by the rules as currently written as a general option available any time.

Perhaps he read it on the internet somewhere...

pterodactyl
Aug 18 2010, 12:54 PM
The above situation arose at the worlds this year involving Bob Ryan of Chi-town. We saw him stepping to the side of his mini and told him he couldn't do that. He obliged without incident.
Nowhere have I read that stepping out of the line of play was legal on wooded doglegs. This hole had a severe dogleg, yet no mandatory.

keithjohnson
Aug 19 2010, 12:18 AM
The above situation arose at the worlds this year involving Bob Ryan of Chi-town. We saw him stepping to the side of his mini and told him he couldn't do that. He obliged without incident.
Nowhere have I read that stepping out of the line of play was legal on wooded doglegs. This hole had a severe dogleg, yet no mandatory.

Same with Hole 8 red course - I was glad to be able to use line of play as I was BURIED in the schule even with the pin and had to lay down on my stomach to be able to reach out into the open to try and throw toward the opening of the green. The rest of the group was looking at me like there's no way he'll be able to get to his lie - which if I "had to" play down the opening instead of line of play - would have been true.

Find the line of play no matter where it is and use it as the rules require - don't try to find another "loophole" to get over on players that are trying to play fairly.

Stinking play on that RED course kept me out of the cut at Worlds :(
2 rounds of 57 and 60 - only one 2 total in 2 rounds - and I was only 2 shots out of the cut!

DShelton
Aug 19 2010, 06:54 PM
It's my understanding that this flight line of play has been used on hole 5 at the USDGC for several years now so it's not unknown among the highest level of players and officials. I'm surprised that it's used there because in my reading of the rules, the only place it truly follows the rulebook is when the LOP cannot easily be determined such as in the woods with a winding fairway. If the LOP cannot be determined then the closest rule using Fairness (803.01F) could allow the Flight line of play. That's how you get there from the rulebook. But hole 5 is in the open. So the only thing I can see is that the USDGC must have been granted a waiver for using the flight line of play there. They have gotten waivers before on a variety of rulings.

When I emailed the Rules Committee about the "Feldberg Stance" (mentioned in his video that the rule was now that you had to have both feet touch the ground after a putt or it was concidered a falling putt), they told me that just because it is used in the USDGC doesn't mean that it is an official rule to be used in other tournaments. So why should we now assume that if something is used at the USDGC then we should and must use it in other tournaments?

cgkdisc
Aug 19 2010, 07:07 PM
If the USDGC gets a waiver, like the most famous one for the original island hole rule, then it's not part of the regular rules. But in the case of the flight line of play, there was no indication from the RC that it was based on a USDGC waiver but a new accepted interpretation of the current rules (even though I would hope it was a waiver from a personal standpoint).

jconnell
Aug 19 2010, 07:55 PM
If the USDGC gets a waiver, like the most famous one for the original island hole rule, then it's not part of the regular rules. But in the case of the flight line of play, there was no indication from the RC that it was based on a USDGC waiver but a new accepted interpretation of the current rules (even though I would hope it was a waiver from a personal standpoint).
Except that in the case of a waiver such as the island hole rule, the waiver was well documented by the USDGC staff in the form of course rules in the player program/caddy book/etc. I've still seen and heard ZERO with regard to this phantom "new interpretation" ever being used at the USDGC. I'd love it if Harold or Jonathan or, heck, any player that remembers them specifically allowing the "flight line of play" interpretation at the USDGC would speak up and assuage my concerns. Otherwise, it appears to me that the author of the Rules School article and/or the RC is pulling a brand new rule out of you-know-where. Because that "interpretation" certainly is not of anything in the current rule book.

gippy
Aug 19 2010, 08:02 PM
I feel we need ONE rule book for all play. ONE BOOK ONE SET OF RULES END OF STORY. New rule gets made make a new rule book next season Period. K.I.S.S(keep it simple silly)

davei
Aug 20 2010, 08:33 AM
Except that in the case of a waiver such as the island hole rule, the waiver was well documented by the USDGC staff in the form of course rules in the player program/caddy book/etc. I've still seen and heard ZERO with regard to this phantom "new interpretation" ever being used at the USDGC. I'd love it if Harold or Jonathan or, heck, any player that remembers them specifically allowing the "flight line of play" interpretation at the USDGC would speak up and assuage my concerns. Otherwise, it appears to me that the author of the Rules School article and/or the RC is pulling a brand new rule out of you-know-where. Because that "interpretation" certainly is not of anything in the current rule book.

I believe the "line of play" came into being at USDGC most specifically on hole #4, before the second mandatory was put in place. The hole did play like a horse shoe, and if you didn't get out the initial window, you still had to play out the window, perpendicular to the target, before you could go at the target. The players were confused about where to put their foot. I don't remember this at all for hole #5, or why it would be particularly necessary. But, line of play for the second shot could be off by 30 to 40 degrees, and that happens all the time with multiple shot holes where you have to, (or choose to) go around objects on shots subsequent to the tee. The tee already mandates foot placement, so it is not an issue in either case.

jshrack
Aug 23 2010, 02:57 AM
I always figured that the basic Idea of 'Marking your lie" had to do with making sure your foot was in the same place as your disc originally landed.

Both of these interpretations will give you the same lie if marked with a mini and this distinction should only be a concern if applied when using your thrown disc as a marker. This was not referenced in the rules school from what I remember... but could be an issue.

To get back the the point; once you put your mini on the ground, you have established your intended FOP and must step directly in line with that FOP. This will place your foot in the exact spot where your disc was sitting. Whether this FOP is in direct line with the basket or an arbitrary point along the fairway, it should always give the same location for foot placement and shot selection.


As for the Rules School postings being legitimate tourney rules... i think that is total B.S. We are supposed to have a standard PDGA rulebook for a reason. Each player is given one upon membership to PDGA and it's an easy buy in your local Disc Golf shop.
This rough re-working of the rules in a way that circumvents actual RC approval only hinders our sport's legitimacy. We need to solidify the rules in a concrete hard-copy format with no references to online information or sources.

exczar
Aug 23 2010, 11:38 AM
I agree that the properly placed marker disc indicates where a supporting point must be at the time of release, but if the marker disc is incorrectly placed, then it does not accurately reflect the "true" 30cm line where a supporting point must be.

I would say that if someone has an issue with how a disc was marked, it must be expressed before the player has thrown, and that the marker disc, as placed, must be used as the final indication of a stance violation if the player has already thrown and there was no concern expressed beforehand, even if the marker was not placed correctly.

jconnell
Aug 23 2010, 08:16 PM
So, should we interpret the sudden and unexplained disappearance of the Rules School article from this site to mean that perhaps it was not intended to be an "approved" and "accepted" interpretation of rule 803.03 after all? Or perhaps that the interpretation it presented involving the phantom "flight line of play" was inaccurate and incorrect from the start?

cgkdisc
Aug 23 2010, 08:29 PM
No conspiracy. More to come soon.

jshrack
Aug 23 2010, 09:46 PM
http://www.pdga.com/files/u5379/flight_line.jpg
The funny thing is, the player who used lie 'A' would have a better angle to make the given shot.
Anyway, I hope this is all assimilated into an official and concrete ruling.
I also pray the rulebook is updated in the near future to unify all the information into a standardized tournament resource.

cgkdisc
Aug 24 2010, 10:34 AM
Marking a Lie article is back up. Rules Committee decided Flight Line of Play not broadly supportable in current rules. Clarification comments from them to come. http://www.pdga.com/marking-a-lie (http://www.pdga.com/marking-a-lie)

veganray
Aug 24 2010, 10:56 AM
The RC reviewed this write-up for a few months now and support the content as written.

Rules Committee decided Flight Line of Play not broadly supportable in current rules.

How are these two statements reconcilable without the presence of dishonesty of the poster or incompetence or extremely lazy indifference of the RC?

Note that I am neither pointing fingers nor making accusations, merely trying to wrap my head around the thought process (or lack of) that led to this farce.

cgkdisc
Aug 24 2010, 11:26 AM
RC asked me to put Flight Line in the article (I hadn't heard of it before) because it apparently had been used in some cases. Now they've asked that it be removed. They will make a statement on this at some point.