oklaoutlaw
Sep 15 2010, 07:02 PM
I just would like to hear what some others have to say about a situation as set out here.

Player A throws a tee shot that lands in an area thick with poison ivy. Player A then asks for relief from the poisonous plant stating that they are highly allergic and brushing against it and not being able to properly wash it off within a 20 minute window would put their health in high danger.

You are in the group and you have previously during the round had relief from a fire ant mound (a harmful insect) under rule 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.)

Player A is asking for relief under the same rule 803.05 C

What's the call?

Thanks for the input

cgkdisc
Sep 15 2010, 07:30 PM
Player calls unplayable lie, gets a 1-throw penalty and either plays up to 5m behind PI patch or rethrows from original lie. It's little different from a lie in a bramble patch where one player decides they'll risk getting their body ripped up going in there to play it or decide to take an unplayable penalty and throw from 5m behind it or previous lie.

jconnell
Sep 15 2010, 08:03 PM
I'd take Chuck's ruling a step further (declaring an unplayable lie and taking up to 5M of relief), and approach the TD after the round to see if he/she would call poison ivy a casual obstacle for the purposes of the tournament. If he/she does, perhaps at that point, the penalty could be deducted from Player A's score, rendering it simply taking casual relief.

Seems to me that poison ivy is a common enough occurrence on disc golf courses that it ought to be listed as a casual obstacle from which relief is always granted. It really isn't any different than casual water...some players don't care if they stand in it (waterproof footwear = immune to ivy) while others will choose not to (non-waterproof footwear = allergic).

futurecollisions
Sep 15 2010, 10:57 PM
I'd take Chuck's ruling a step further (declaring an unplayable lie and taking up to 5M of relief), and approach the TD after the round to see if he/she would call poison ivy a casual obstacle for the purposes of the tournament. If he/she does, perhaps at that point, the penalty could be deducted from Player A's score, rendering it simply taking casual relief.

Seems to me that poison ivy is a common enough occurrence on disc golf courses that it ought to be listed as a casual obstacle from which relief is always granted. It really isn't any different than casual water...some players don't care if they stand in it (waterproof footwear = immune to ivy) while others will choose not to (non-waterproof footwear = allergic).

I agree 100%. this comes up at a particular course here all the time

bravo
Sep 15 2010, 11:29 PM
player a could carry a small package of diaper wipes.
this has worked for me as well.
the packages are available at convienience stores and the section at walmart wher the flight bottles and such are at.
they dont take much space in the bag and can save those who are more alergic than others

pterodactyl
Sep 16 2010, 12:50 AM
that poison oak or ivy has to be declared relief/no relief before the tourney starts. If there is no declaration, then there is no relief. Unfortunately PO and PI are not specifically named on the relief list. $.o2
Player should play a provisional. The entire group may not have heard the TD announcements due to not paying attention and everyone talking.

cgkdisc
Sep 16 2010, 01:32 AM
The difficulty with PI is it doesn't always grow in nice patches that have clear boundaries. If there are such known patches, the TD may mark and declare them as casual relief before the tournament. But otherwise, the player just has to decide whether to play it or take the penalty.

Hoser
Sep 16 2010, 08:29 AM
803.06 charges 1 stroke to move as far as 5M behind the unplayable lie, not 5M behind the whole PI patch. If 5M doesn't get you out of the PI patch, your choice is to rethrow from previous lie (total penalty 1 stroke) or pay an additional stroke for every 5M it takes you to get clear of the PI.

davidsauls
Sep 16 2010, 08:31 AM
Any idea why dangerous plants---poison ivy, briars---are not included in the casual relief rule? It seems reasonable, and rarely to the advantage of the player. Other than, perhaps, potential disputes over identifying it. Or that frequently 5 meters is not enough to get out of the briar patch.

It seems TDs could just declare it casual, wherever found.

At our place we have almost no poison ivy, but lots of briars. We request a rules variance and allow players to stomp down or break off briars, wherever enountered.

oklaoutlaw
Sep 16 2010, 11:19 AM
Thanks for the responses. This is a question for Chuck.

So considering the "harmful" nature of PO/PI to some, what is the difference between that hazard and harmful insects/animals?

Why would PO/PI not be mentioned and included in the rule?

Personally I would rather stand on an a fire ant mound than subject myself to a PO/PI patch, the results of the ants would be far less "harmful" to me than the vegetation.

I am just trying to reason why the omission of something that could be so harmful.

JerryChesterson
Sep 16 2010, 11:51 AM
Thanks for the responses. This is a question for Chuck.

So considering the "harmful" nature of PO/PI to some, what is the difference between that hazard and harmful insects/animals?

Why would PO/PI not be mentioned and included in the rule?

Personally I would rather stand on an a fire ant mound than subject myself to a PO/PI patch, the results of the ants would be far less "harmful" to me than the vegetation.

I am just trying to reason why the omission of something that could be so harmful.

Because there should be a penalty for landing in foliage. Just don't throw your disc into the PI/PO.

oklaoutlaw
Sep 16 2010, 12:05 PM
Because there should be a penalty for landing in foliage. Just don't throw your disc into the PI/PO.

While I know this was probably meant to be humorous, I have been on courses where you can be in the "fairway" and still be in a patch of the notorious vegetation.

cgkdisc
Sep 16 2010, 12:23 PM
Animals can potentially attack the player. Typically, vegetation does not.

JerryChesterson
Sep 16 2010, 12:39 PM
While I know this was probably meant to be humorous, I have been on courses where you can be in the "fairway" and still be in a patch of the notorious vegetation.

Definately not meant to be humerous. If you have PI/PO in the fairway then remove it or considere it not the fairway. Still there are trees in the fairway too and you should try and avoid those too, really no difference.

davidsauls
Sep 16 2010, 12:51 PM
Animals can potentially attack the player. Typically, vegetation does not.

You haven't met our briars.

Seriously, though, for some people, vegetation can do more serious harm, and the effect endures far longer than ant bites or bee stings.

It's easy for Jerry to say to avoid it, but it's not always within our abilities. Even trying to avoid it, a bad shot hits a tree and kicks off the fairway into the ivy.

Perhaps it's a poor shot that lands in the poison ivy, but hey, it's just a game. Why suffer injuries on top of the stroke or two the bad shot costs? In most cases, casual relief from poison ivy or briars would not be a competitive advantage.

JerryChesterson
Sep 16 2010, 12:57 PM
In most cases, casual relief from poison ivy or briars would not be a competitive advantage.

You couldn't be more wrong. If it wasn't a competative advantage then why give relief? That's like baseball players who use steriods saying it doesn't help them hit a baseball. If it didn't help you wouldn't do it.

PO/PI is just another obstacle that should be avoided like trees and water.

august
Sep 16 2010, 01:24 PM
Animals can potentially attack the player. Typically, vegetation does not.

Depends on the definition of "attack". Vegetation cannot actively attack as an animal can, but the toxins therein can attack someone's immune system. The bottom line is that PI can be just as dangerous to someone as a bee sting.

In any event, I doubt this is why PI and PO are left out of the casual relief list. I think it's just an oversight. Loose debris does not attack players, yet there it is on the list.

Tons of poison ivy at my house course. I have always taken relief under the "my course/my rules" theory.

davidsauls
Sep 16 2010, 01:53 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. If it wasn't a competative advantage then why give relief? That's like baseball players who use steriods saying it doesn't help them hit a baseball. If it didn't help you wouldn't do it.

PO/PI is just another obstacle that should be avoided like trees and water.

You lost me there.

My brother, highly allergic to poison ivy, kicks of a tree into the woods and lands in a patch of it. As it is he pulls up his socks, wades into the poison ivy, and attempts a throw out of the woods and into the fairway. If there were casual relief, he takes a stance on the line of play just beyond the poison ivy, and attempts to throw out of the woods and into the fairway. Neither throw likely easier than the other. Same score. No competitive advantage.

He and I throw into the woods. He lands in tall weeds. I land 5' away in briars. We both wade in, mark and lie, and throw. Same throw, same score. If it's a casual obstacle and I take relief behind it, same throw, same score, no competitive advantage. Except perhaps I don't suffer painful cuts in the process.

I'm sure there are scenarios where making dangerous plants casual obstacles would result in a better line to the basket. Or, sometimes, a worse line. But not frequently enough to be a real issue, either way.

I'm just curious, as others are, why the distinction between, say, poison ivy and fire ants?

NOHalfFastPull
Sep 16 2010, 02:34 PM
David

Not sure your dear brother would appreciate you
telling the world he throws as poorly as you.:)

Saying don't throw in the stuff is not enough.
The reaction to PO/PI varies just like insect bites.
TD should know the course and make mention
in players' meeting.
A trip to the ER is a crappy way to enjoy your hobby.

steve timm

JerryChesterson
Sep 16 2010, 03:42 PM
You lost me there.

My brother, highly allergic to poison ivy, kicks of a tree into the woods and lands in a patch of it. As it is he pulls up his socks, wades into the poison ivy, and attempts a throw out of the woods and into the fairway. If there were casual relief, he takes a stance on the line of play just beyond the poison ivy, and attempts to throw out of the woods and into the fairway. Neither throw likely easier than the other. Same score. No competitive advantage.

He and I throw into the woods. He lands in tall weeds. I land 5' away in briars. We both wade in, mark and lie, and throw. Same throw, same score. If it's a casual obstacle and I take relief behind it, same throw, same score, no competitive advantage. Except perhaps I don't suffer painful cuts in the process.

I'm sure there are scenarios where making dangerous plants casual obstacles would result in a better line to the basket. Or, sometimes, a worse line. But not frequently enough to be a real issue, either way.

I'm just curious, as others are, why the distinction between, say, poison ivy and fire ants?

If you aren't getting an advantage then why are you looking for a new lie? The advantage is that you don't have to stand in and get PO/PI. That's an advantage you would have over a competitor who threw a better shot that didn't land in PO/PI.

JerryChesterson
Sep 16 2010, 03:48 PM
David

Not sure your dear brother would appreciate you
telling the world he throws as poorly as you.:)

Saying don't throw in the stuff is not enough.
The reaction to PO/PI varies just like insect bites.
TD should know the course and make mention
in players' meeting.
A trip to the ER is a crappy way to enjoy your hobby.

steve timm

Right and people's arm strength varies too so because I can't throw as far as you I should get relief closer to the hole. Physical limitations are a huge part of sports. If you are allergic to PO/PI to the point that it can take you to the ER, then don't play the course. Plus you don't even have to land in PO/PI to get it. It can also be air and water born so just because you didn't land in it doesn't mean you won't get it. Be real here people. In no way should you ever get relief from a plant (I don't agree with the catcus as relief rule either).

NOHalfFastPull
Sep 16 2010, 03:57 PM
If you are allergic to PO/PI to the point that it can take you to the ER, then don't play the course.

You bring up an excellent point, I should just stay home in my bubble and play the DG video game.

steve timm

davidsauls
Sep 16 2010, 04:13 PM
Be real here people. In no way should you ever get relief from a plant (I don't agree with the catcus as relief rule either).

We'll have to agree to disagree. In my mind, how much danger should a someone face to play disc golf? It's not an extreme sport. I'd say, if you can make a change to minimize injury to a player without changing his score, do it.

davidsauls
Sep 16 2010, 04:14 PM
David

Not sure your dear brother would appreciate you
telling the world he throws as poorly as you.:)



He'd say that I throw poorly more often.

davidsauls
Sep 16 2010, 05:02 PM
Though my argument was made with the extreme example---people with severe allergic reactions---many, probably most people are allergic to poison ivy. All are vulnerable to thorns.

The choice for disc golfers is to suffer the effects of either, or not play at all? Not a great choice. Casual relief would seem a better option than either.

veganray
Sep 16 2010, 05:16 PM
Where to draw the line? That tree there could hurt my hand. Those thistles my disc landed in look awfully prickly & could make me itch. Those vines above my lie look like they're just achin' to give me some Indian burn on my reachback. Those particularly slice-y lookin' blades of grass make me fear for the safety of my sandal-clad tootsies. And don't even get me started on that 'dangerous' boxwood that just swallowed my disc (and that just so happens to have a perfectly clear shot <5m directly behind it); it is a well-known fact that venturing into one of those monsters can make your hair smell like cat pee for a week.

davidsauls
Sep 16 2010, 06:01 PM
Fair point. At least up to the absurd point.

I conceded earlier in this thread that one reservation might be that many people can't correctly identify poison ivy. I'd hate to get into a dispute as to whether the relief someone took was for the correct plant, or not.

But I can also live with judgement calls and shades of gray in the rulebook, especially on something like casual relief. I've lived with them in other sports. Attempts to avoid them entirely end up looking like the federal tax code. So if it gave relief from "dangerous plants such as poison ivy and thorns", it would be okay with me.

markpeterson
Sep 16 2010, 08:17 PM
Do what I do and spray it with round up so next year you don't have to worry about it.

wsfaplau
Sep 16 2010, 11:14 PM
Maybe we should check the rules Q & As to see what the rules committee has to say in the subject.

They basically say the TD needs to address this ahead of time. If the TD fails to do so here is what the RC say... (under a question about bluebonnets in Texas and multiple times in the ruling they worded it as Bluebonnets (and poison ivy) ")...

""Obviously, the above comments are all well and good...BUT, what if the TD failed to do his job? What IF, the player finds herself in the bluebonnets and does not know what to do? Some of the possibilities are not fun, such as breaking a state law or taking a penalty. We don't want a player to be penalized by her knowledge of and respect for the law. What to do? The player should inform her group, stop play, find the TD (or course official) and request a ruling. (Since the group has halted play while waiting on a ruling, other groups should be allowed to play through!) The TD's best bet would be to declare the bluebonnet area a casual relief area (under 803.05 C) for the rest of the round (since presumably other groups have played the hole in ignorance of the laws regarding bluebonnet protection). It should then remain casual relief for the rest of the tournament."""

august
Sep 17 2010, 08:34 AM
Right and people's arm strength varies too so because I can't throw as far as you I should get relief closer to the hole. Physical limitations are a huge part of sports. If you are allergic to PO/PI to the point that it can take you to the ER, then don't play the course. Plus you don't even have to land in PO/PI to get it. It can also be air and water born so just because you didn't land in it doesn't mean you won't get it. Be real here people. In no way should you ever get relief from a plant (I don't agree with the catcus as relief rule either).

Without fail, it seems that there is always someone willing to post inherently flawed logic.

august
Sep 17 2010, 08:44 AM
Where to draw the line?


I agree. There needs to be one drawn. I see a big difference between poison ivy and wild thorny blackberries. The poison ivy is a known toxin, whereas the blackberries are not. I think relief should be granted from poison ivy, but the blackberries should be an unplayable lie call.

Strangely enough, blackberries and poison ivy often grow together and are controlled/killed by the same Ortho product!

cgkdisc
Sep 17 2010, 09:51 AM
I can roll around in PI without problem. In thorny blackberry bushes, it would be brutal. Fire ants would likely damage everyone.

krazyeye
Sep 17 2010, 09:57 AM
Maybe we should check the rules Q & As to see what the rules committee has to say in the subject.

They basically say the TD needs to address this ahead of time. If the TD fails to do so here is what the RC say... (under a question about bluebonnets in Texas and multiple times in the ruling they worded it as Bluebonnets (and poison ivy) ")...

""Obviously, the above comments are all well and good...BUT, what if the TD failed to do his job? What IF, the player finds herself in the bluebonnets and does not know what to do? Some of the possibilities are not fun, such as breaking a state law or taking a penalty. We don't want a player to be penalized by her knowledge of and respect for the law. What to do? The player should inform her group, stop play, find the TD (or course official) and request a ruling. (Since the group has halted play while waiting on a ruling, other groups should be allowed to play through!) The TD's best bet would be to declare the bluebonnet area a casual relief area (under 803.05 C) for the rest of the round (since presumably other groups have played the hole in ignorance of the laws regarding bluebonnet protection). It should then remain casual relief for the rest of the tournament."""

Please don't bring the bluebonnets into it. There are no laws in Texas that say anything about going into bluebonnet patches that is a myth.

davidsauls
Sep 17 2010, 10:49 AM
I can roll around in PI without problem. In thorny blackberry bushes, it would be brutal. Fire ants would likely damage everyone.

I could too for much of my adult life.....until I was weedeating a patch of it on a disc golf course---to avoid the very situation of this thread!---aerosoled it, and regained my childhood allergy. Go figure.

I suppose the casual relief rule is directed at temporary items that weren't intended to be part of the course, but it does seem to favor preventing injury or unreasonable discomfort (casual water). Interesting that we may take relief from loose leaves, but not toxic leaves; dangerous animals, but not dangerous plants.

I'll revert to an earlier question. Many posts here go to whether or not casual relief should be granted in the rules. But does anyone know which of these arguments, or perhaps others, the Rules Committee has considered in distinguishing between dangerous animals & plants?

cgkdisc
Sep 17 2010, 11:38 AM
In think there's an educational element to why plants do not get relief and animals do. Many players don't know what poison plants look like and a player could (and has in the past) take advantage of others in the group indicating a plant is "dangerous" and they should get relief even though it's a safe patch of plants.

davidsauls
Sep 17 2010, 01:52 PM
I conceded earlier in this thread that one reservation might be that many people can't correctly identify poison ivy. I'd hate to get into a dispute as to whether the relief someone took was for the correct plant, or not.



That had been one of my guesses. Just curious if it's the actual reason.

august
Sep 17 2010, 02:04 PM
In think there's an educational element to why plants do not get relief and animals do. Many players don't know what poison plants look like and a player could (and has in the past) take advantage of others in the group indicating a plant is "dangerous" and they should get relief even though it's a safe patch of plants.

That's a fair enough statement, but many also don't know the difference between venomous and non-venomous snakes. The same player referenced above could take advantage of the other players' lack of knowledge and declare that a harmless King Snake is actually a Cottonmouth.

We already have folks who take advantage of others inability to comprehend the written rules.

davidsauls
Sep 17 2010, 02:42 PM
According to eyewitnesses, 90% of all snakes encountered are cottonmouths. Apparently they come in all colors and patterns.

PhattD
Sep 17 2010, 11:57 PM
That's a fair enough statement, but many also don't know the difference between venomous and non-venomous snakes. The same player referenced above could take advantage of the other players' lack of knowledge and declare that a harmless King Snake is actually a Cottonmouth.

We already have folks who take advantage of others inability to comprehend the written rules.

Do you really have shots land next to snakes often enough for this to matter? Depending on the where you play you could take releif from vegetation claiming it's poison ivy several times a round. If you're allergic to poison ivy cover up. If you're so allergic that even covering up doesn't work maybe playing in the woods isn't a good idea. I wouldn't reccomend taking up beekeeping as a hobby if you're allergic to bees either.

eupher61
Sep 23 2010, 04:14 PM
If you aren't getting an advantage then why are you looking for a new lie? The advantage is that you don't have to stand in and get PO/PI. That's an advantage you would have over a competitor who threw a better shot that didn't land in PO/PI.

As it was mentioned, a PI patch could be anywhere, not just in woods. In these times, plenty of courses in public parks are fairway mowed. It doesn't take a lot to get off the fairway.

The advantage is he won't get exposed to the PI, won't get sick from it and risk possible serious illness or death.

PI is serious business. PO isn't as prevalent in reality, in a large part of the country, but it's serious where it does exist.

If fire ants are are casual, PI should be. NO QUESTION.

steve

veganray
Sep 23 2010, 04:32 PM
If fire ants are are casual, PI should be. NO QUESTION.

If poison ivy should be, how 'bout poison oak? How 'bout poison sumac? How 'bout stinging nettles? How 'bout thorns? (And how big does a thorn need to be to qualify?) How 'bout tobacco? Ragweed? Goldenrod? Pokeberry? Cedar? Cactus? Tomato? Strawberry? Grass?

As you can see, the slope is quite slippery, as a great many commonly-found plants have mechanical and/or chemical defense mechanisms & could be classified as 'harmful' - & worthy of free relief - by a player with a less-than-stout constitution (or possibly a sensible desire to gain advantage by massaging the rules).

davidsauls
Sep 23 2010, 05:33 PM
Isn't there also a slippery slope on dangerous animals? Grizzy bears, alligators, fine. Hornets, bees, fire ants, fine. Other ants? Can you tell different species of ants? Snake species? I got bit by a deer fly earlier this year and my hand swoll up for 24 hours (though I'd probably have to keep taking relief from him until I left the county).

We give relief for dangerous animals and inspects, without specifying exactly which ones or being sure players identify them properly. Why not plants? Sure, there are gray areas---but some are pretty clearly on one side of the fuzzy line, or the other.

(By the way, I haven't met a thorn small enough that it wouldn't pass muster as hazardous).

davidsauls
Sep 23 2010, 05:36 PM
On the other hand, one of the most dangerous plants I've seen on the disc golf course is a solid tree, too close to the follow-through. Destroys a throwing hand. That's the one I'd most like some relief from---and the relief I wouldn't want the rules twisted to allow.

veganray
Sep 23 2010, 05:46 PM
Isn't there also a slippery slope on dangerous animals?

YES!!! Though, to be precise, the rule specifies "harmful", not "dangerous" animals & insects as worthy of casual relief.

(I think you're getting my argument, not unlike a drunken fratboy lurching across the bar's parking lot & falling face-first onto a crisp, new $100 bill.)

gotcha
Sep 24 2010, 08:13 AM
[QUOTE=veganray;1438860]a less-than-stout constitution QUOTE]

:p

davidsauls
Sep 24 2010, 08:27 AM
YES!!! Though, to be precise, the rule specifies "harmful", not "dangerous" animals & insects as worthy of casual relief.



Makes sense. Most truly dangerous animals, 5 meters isn't enough relief.

If my disc lands next to a 10' alligator, I think I'm calling it unplayable....if not lost.

cgkdisc
Sep 24 2010, 09:06 AM
I'd say the group would grant up to 5m relief from the outer edge of the threat from any animals, not necessarily 5m from any animal(s).

davidsauls
Sep 24 2010, 09:41 AM
Not if they stick to the wording of the rule.

Besides, they'd have to grant me a LOT of relief.
I consider a threat any alligator within sight, and any bear within memory.

wsfaplau
Sep 24 2010, 12:43 PM
I'd say the group would grant up to 5m relief from the outer edge of the threat from any animals, not necessarily 5m from any animal(s).

Chuck, you seem like a rules kind of guy. I'm just curious why you seem to advocate ignoring the casual relief rule of moving back 5 meters in favor of moving back as far as needed to avoid the whole poison ivy patch or as far as you want to avoid an animal?

Seems unusual for a rules guy to be advocating just making stuff up as you go.

cgkdisc
Sep 24 2010, 01:18 PM
Nothing inconsistent about it. I would allow the player up to 5m from the animal hazard threat versus poison ivy. In one case, certain animals can/may come after you and in the other, the poison ivy location is fixed. Note that TDs can allow extended relief but can't always be around to provide it when there's a moose nearby. I would consider playing from the extended relief position accepted by my group and also playing a provisional from the previous lie so the TD could potentially grant extended relief once they hear about the situation.

rhett
Sep 24 2010, 04:06 PM
In other words, Chuck routinely completely disregards the PDGA rules of play during PDGA sanctioned tournaments.

veganray
Sep 24 2010, 04:20 PM
803.05C(2):
Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle unless a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, or if a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and is not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unplayable lie and proceed in accordance with 803.06.

Seems as black & white as anything in the rulebook, and a lot more than most things. If 5m on LOP from the original lie (NOT from the harmful animal & CERTAINLY NOT from the limit of the potential radius of danger associated with the harmful animal) of the is insufficient to get you the desired amount of relief, unplayable lie (with 1 stroke penalty & relocation either to a lie up to 10m on the LOP from the original lie OR to the previous lie) is the only permissible remedy.

wsfaplau
Sep 24 2010, 04:36 PM
I just want to see all players play from the same set of rules.
I certainly would think players could EASILY get an unfair advantage in many situations by backing up more than the allowed 5 meters.
One guy backs up 15 meters and has a longer but more open shot, the guy playing by the rules backs up 5 meters and can't make the same shot and loses a stroke.

I'd call that the "rule of un-fairness"

People making rulings up isn't good for the sport.
I agree with you on taking a provisional though but that could lead to a ruling in favor of backing off 15 meters that one player takes that others aren't aware they might have the option. Or would lead to a dozen or so provisionals in a round just in case the TD might rule in their favor on one of them.

We have rules, play by them, its better for everyone.

veganray
Sep 24 2010, 04:41 PM
^^^
Well put! My sentiments exactly.

cgkdisc
Sep 24 2010, 04:52 PM
Real world example happened to me about 14 years ago. I landed on a rotting log. When I marked and removed my disc, a swarm of wasps came out of the log at me. I ran out of the area. The TD was in the group behind us, playing in a different division. He allowed relief 100 feet to the left of the wasp nest at essentially the same distance from the pin. Someone else had to retrieve my bag. (Apparently, the wasps primarily go after the person who initially disturbed them.)

A primary intent of the casual relief rule regarding harmful animals is safety from attack. Some harmful animals have a potential attack range greater than 5m. The rulebook allows the TD to provide extended relief and even mark a drop zone (see Special Conditions) for known problem areas. So, the group allowing a player to go beyond 5m and later letting the TD decide if the extended relief was warranted (taking provisional just in case) is within the rules. Even if the player does not play a provisional, if the TD later denies the extended relief, the player would get a 2-throw misplay penalty which would likely be about the same as if they took an unplayable penalty and threw again from the previous lie.

veganray
Sep 24 2010, 05:17 PM
What about the player in the group 3 cards later who throws to the same spot? He confronts swarming, angry wasps & seeks relief. Consulting the rulebook & the handout he received at the players' meeting, he sees that he gets a maximum of 5m on the LOP relief & that no special �ber-relief is specified for that spot. Seeing the near-certainty of injury, he elects to abandon his disc, take an unplayable lie, and eat the stroke & distance.

His lack of the privileged status that you enjoyed (i.e., the proximity of the TD to make up a 'private' rule on-the-spot) cost him at least one stroke, probably more like two. Rule of unfairness at its finest. Even if the TD wasn't right there and you played a provisional & strong-armed the TD to give you the additional beyond-the-rulebook relief after the round, the unfairness is still there, as players who faced the same situation & played by the letter of the law are indirectly disadvantaged by your brazenness & the TD's capitulation.

I have no issue with a TD declaring special conditions & allowing a freaking mile of relief if he wants, but doing it in the middle of a round, where all players are not equally aware of the rule, is absolute lunacy & patently unfair.

cgkdisc
Sep 24 2010, 05:50 PM
Sorry but the rules were followed appropriately. Many players have different "unfair advantages" in every round for a variety of reasons and better knowledge of certain rules is just one of many. For example, a local player may know that wind is always coming around the corner on a shot even if they can't feel it on the tee. Even if the TD wasn't there, a savvy player could have done the exact same thing that I was allowed but also playing a provisional from the previous lie and letting the TD sort it out later. No strong arming was involved as another player suggested contacting the TD in the following group to determine what to do and the TD was more experienced than me at the time.

veganray
Sep 24 2010, 05:57 PM
B-O-G-U-S. Knowing the rules in the rulebook & applying them to one's advantage is one thing, but having a brand new rule custom-tailored to one's situation on-the-fly (particularly with no communication to the other players of the existence of this new & improved rule) is non only inherently unfair, but not allowed for in any section of the rules.

Making up rules in the middle of competition is 100% wrong, in both the statutory & moral senses of the word.

cgkdisc
Sep 24 2010, 07:30 PM
What rule was made up? Even officials besides the TDs can grant "other relief" as indicated in 803.05:
D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official.
E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

If the TD feels the "other relief" granted was unwarranted, then the player gets a one throw penalty. Right in the rules VR. It's up to the TD. The player is still subject to an unfavorable ruling if the TD doesn't feel their choice was warranted.

rob
Sep 25 2010, 11:25 AM
What rule was made up? Even officials besides the TDs can grant "other relief" as indicated in 803.05:
D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official.
E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

If the TD feels the "other relief" granted was unwarranted, then the player gets a one throw penalty. Right in the rules VR. It's up to the TD. The player is still subject to an unfavorable ruling if the TD doesn't feel their choice was warranted.

SO, if the majority of the group is OK with a player (or all of the players in their group) moving their disc out of the danger-zone (I don't like my lie ;) ) to the middle of the fairway, it's OK because a majority of the group says so? Sounds like you are setting up "legal" cheating.

cgkdisc
Sep 25 2010, 11:36 AM
Note that the TD has to approve the extended relief. So if the situation arises where the player and group feels extended relief beyond the standard 5m is appropriate, the TD either needs to be asked before doing it or asked later. If the TD is asked later and doesn't feel the choice was appropriate, the player gets a one throw penalty added per 803.05E. Or, if the player played a provisional rethrow with penalty, that sequence would stand if the TD didn't feel the group's choice for extended relief was appropriate.

wsfaplau
Sep 25 2010, 01:36 PM
Just as bad as players making up rules are TDs and officials making up rules. Actually even worse.

Lets look at Chuck's wasp story. The TD granting him relief the way he did is totally against the rules. This wasn't a gray area but a blatant disregard of the black and white rules.

The rule clearly state the relief Chuck should have been given was up to 5 meters straight back on the line of play for harmful insects. That's it.

Where did he come up with 100 ft on a different line of play? He ignored the rule and just made it up.

Did other players get the same benefit of a made up rule? Obviously no.
Competitive advantage gained? Obviously yes.
Chuck got to take his time, set up his shot, and make it calmly.
The next guy who pulled out his rulebook, would have taken 5 meters, rushed in, taken a quick stance and hurried his throw and dashed away. Because that is what the rules say to do.

Players not knowing the rules and making stuff up is bad.
Officials not knowing the rules and making stuff up is unacceptable.
TDs not knowing the rules and making stuff up is unacceptable.

I don't even see how the conduct of a player, official, and TD in this wasp case are defensible on any level. Unless of course you want to argue that the TD can do whatever he wants at any time no matter what the rules say.

cgkdisc
Sep 25 2010, 02:14 PM
I can't remember whether the wasp incident was under 1990 rules or 1997 rules. If before 1997, casual relief was allowed no closer to the hole including sideways. In 1997 it was changed to line of play and the clause that allowed TDs to specify greater relief was added which is still in the rulebook today. Note that "greater relief" does not have to be on the line of play and can even be a drop zone.

What part of TDs being allowed to provide additional relief seems to bother you? When hazards are known in advance, the TD can specify extended relief so that all players know it. When the TD does not know the hazard in advance, they can still make a judgment that extended relief was warranted if players mark with extended relief and notify the TD of that choice. If the TD disagrees, the player gets penalized. Players get to stay clear of hazards and/or get penalized if the TD disagrees.

johnrock
Sep 25 2010, 04:59 PM
It looks like others are trying to point out that your example is only going to lead to tons more work for TDs because you seem to be advocating for players to find ways to avoid problems that arise on the course during a round and let the TD sort it out later. I know of some players who WILL abuse this and if the TD isn't seasoned or solid, the player gets away with nonsense.

BUNK!

cgkdisc
Sep 25 2010, 05:25 PM
You're advocating that players not take measures to play safely during unforeseen casual hazards? Not a very good policy for a TD.

johnrock
Sep 26 2010, 12:18 PM
No, a good TD will wear himself out trying to eliminate these "unforseen" instances beforehand, and a good TD will explain how to handle these types of situations on the course during the players meeting.

Your strong-arming of the TD during the round is NOT going to happen to one of my events, I don't care how much you type on a internet discussion board.

cgkdisc
Sep 26 2010, 12:50 PM
Not that you'll have a moose show up unexpectedly in the open flats of Texas, but a good TD makes decisions on the fly as needed in the best interests of player safety and fairness while following the rules.

wsfaplau
Sep 27 2010, 12:44 PM
Chuck do you agree you benefited from the TD playing in the group behind you?
What about a player in your division not near the TD?
If they threw by the wasps would they have been given the same relief as you?
Would you agree you most likely received a competitive advantage?

My assumptions - the TD didn't speak of this prior to the round and the TD did nothing to advise the rest of the players about his new ruling since he was playing at the time.

veganray
Sep 27 2010, 01:05 PM
Another piece of evidence to refute the CK misinterpretation:
PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf, Section 800:
Players' Meeting: A meeting of players with the tournament director or course official prior to a tournament, where players are given instructions about the tournament procedures, courses, and any special conditions which will apply during the tournament.

Therefore, if "instructions" about a "special condition" or "tournament procedure" aren't "given" in the "players' meeting", the "special condition" or "tournament procedure" shall not "apply during the tournament" (i.e., no making up rules in the middle).

cgkdisc
Sep 27 2010, 01:06 PM
There was no competitive advantage. The situation had to be addressed by the TD regardless how close he was to my group since this wasp nest and swarming wasps were right at the woods opening on the fairway toward the basket that other players following would be throwing toward. I can't remember if they got some wasp bomb or tape marked the area or placed a sign for hazard relief. Duster, the experienced TD, handled the situation and I went along. I had little input in the resolution and felt it was fair for my lie to be relocated where I was placed. Still feel that was an appropriate call under the circumstances and it's still supported for TDs to do the same under current rules. Likewise, players have the option to handle the unforeseen situation and let the TD determine if their judgment was fair/appropriate or if a penalty is warranted as provided in the rules.

cgkdisc
Sep 27 2010, 01:12 PM
If a Special Condition arises during the event, it's not possible for the TD to identify it for relief in advance. Fortunately, the rules allow the TD to resolve unforeseen special conditions after the fact either during the round or after the round using the Rule of Fairness 803.01F. If the TD feels the extended relief was appropriate, then no penalty. If not, then the group's inappropriate use of extended relief is penalized.

veganray
Sep 27 2010, 01:29 PM
Chuck,
In your twisted fantasy-world, what's to stop a playing TD from taking a can of spray paint with him during his round, painting a 1-foot diameter circle around the lie resulting from his his first drive, declaring a "free drop under the basket if your first shot on the hole lands in this circle" special condition, and repeating for each of his subsequent 17 drives?

Since the answer is obviously, "Only his own conscience," it is apparent that either your misinterpretation is contrary to PDGA rules, or that I will be submitting my bid to host & TD Pro Worlds in Spotsy in 2013 immediately.

exczar
Sep 27 2010, 02:03 PM
Vegan,

If you look at the rule book, you will see that the TD is given a good deal of power concerning the event. If we believe that a TD has made a decision that is against the Rules of Play, like the hypothetical you outlined in your last post, we participants in said event are encouraged by the Association to fill out an online comment form about the event, detailing what problems we had with the decisions that the TD has made.

I know you don't mean this, but I am getting from your posts the conclusion that, if a hazardous situation occurs during the round on the course, that the TD has no latitude in declaring the area of the new hazard such, and declaring a special condition, allowing relief. And, as a player, if you come across what you perceive as a hazardous situation that the TD did not discuss during the players' meeting, you can always take provisional throws, knowing that if you do not take a throw from the original lie in the hazardous area, and the TD does not agree with your provisional, you could be penalized.

I know what the peanut gallery is trying to say about Chuck's situation, and it is unfortunate that such hazard pop up during an event, but players should know, if they do, what their options are under the Rules of Play.

NOHalfFastPull
Sep 27 2010, 02:05 PM
Our water hazard contains a friendly gator, Gertie. She has developed a taste for vegans that throw 150 class Gremlins. The rest of us can approach her without fear.

As TD, am I required to give everyone clearance from Gertie? Or do I just offer a brief word at the players' meeting and then follow Ray around the course to be available for his special ruling?

Absurd, I know, but Ray is an acquired taste.

steve timm

davidsauls
Sep 27 2010, 03:38 PM
While I question whether harmful animals should be treated like harmful plants, the rulebook says they're not. It seems like, under the current rules, the wasps, harmful animals, and other dangers, are covered as "unplayable lies". Player can deal with the danger or take the penalty (chalk it up to bad luck), and return to the prior lie. In fact, these examples strike me as more unplayable than many other lies that are deemed unplayable. And this would seem to be the closest applicable rule.

cgkdisc
Sep 27 2010, 03:58 PM
Typically, places where a player might take an unplayable lie are not located near the fairway. However, in the case of unforeseen animal hazards, they may arise in the regular field of play and affect other groups as in the wasp incident. Thus, the possibility of non-penalized relief. The Obstacles Between the Lie and Hole rule where an obstacle becomes a factor during a round is a closer related rule to this situation where the player has the option to remove the obstacle at no penalty if possible, which of course may not be possible with harmful animals that become a factor during the round.

jconnell
Sep 27 2010, 04:08 PM
While I question whether harmful animals should be treated like harmful plants, the rulebook says they're not. It seems like, under the current rules, the wasps, harmful animals, and other dangers, are covered as "unplayable lies". Player can deal with the danger or take the penalty (chalk it up to bad luck), and return to the prior lie. In fact, these examples strike me as more unplayable than many other lies that are deemed unplayable. And this would seem to be the closest applicable rule.
Actually, wasps and harmful animals are specifically covered as casual obstacles, so that would be the closest applicable rule.

But I would agree that if the five meters straight back on the line of play isn't enough relief (and removing the animal/obstacle is impractical), then the next step is declaring an unplayable lie. I agree because that is exactly what 803.05 C(2) says is the procedure. No need for trying to determine the most appropriate rule via the Rule of Fairness, the rule book spells it out explicitly.

That's where my objection to the example Chuck presented comes. The rulebook explicitly addresses a situation like he presents, and the solution is not moving to a lie off the line of play. Maybe that was allowable 14 years ago when his example takes place (since I believe the unsafe lie rule included language about moving a lie anywhere on the fairway no closer to the target than the original lie...with a 2-stroke penalty), but I'd argue it is NOT allowable under the current rules. Whether the TD is nearby or not is irrelevant, IMO. The rule book covers it, it's not necessary for the TD to create a ruling out of thin air.

Now, the TD can grant more casual relief than 5M per 803.05 C(2). But I'm with Ray, he can't do it mid-round for one group that happens to be close by his own group without disseminating the information to all players. I think he'd be fine to do it before the start of the next round, but it wouldn't be retroactive to previous rounds.

cgkdisc
Sep 27 2010, 04:32 PM
I suspect a lot of unforeseen harmful animal hazards and other unforeseen casual relief hazards (flash flooding, tree comes down on fairway/basket) must be dealt with during the round. A player taking an unplayable and rethrowing won't solve the issue and the player's next throw might of necessity have to fly over and potentially land again near the problem area. Considering the issue must be resolved by the group or TD for future players coming thru, why should the player unfortunate enough to first encounter the problem possibly be the only one to take the penalty in addition to the only one who might have gotten injured in the process of discovery (stung, bitten)?

jconnell
Sep 27 2010, 04:49 PM
I suspect a lot of unforeseen harmful animal hazards and other unforeseen casual relief hazards (flash flooding, tree comes down on fairway/basket) must be dealt with during the round. A player taking an unplayable and rethrowing won't solve the issue and the player's next throw might of necessity have to fly over and potentially land again near the problem area. Considering the issue must be resolved by the group or TD for future players coming thru, why should the player unfortunate enough to first encounter the problem possibly be the only one to take the penalty in addition to the only one who might have gotten injured in the process of discovery (stung, bitten)?
What about the other groups that played through the hole prior to the "first encounter"? How do you know that your encounter really was the first of the day? What if I was playing three groups ahead of you and I proceeded with the unplayable lie, with no thought to making up my own relief or seeking out the TD for a special ruling because the rule book EXPLICITLY addresses the given situation? Why should I be penalized when you had the benefit of the TD playing nearby to give you free relief to which I wasn't availed?

Best approach to the situation would be to proceed according to the rulebook, and following the round, see about the TD removing the penalty from each affected player's score. This way, every player proceeds in a uniform way with the situation until it can be officially rectified by the TD. Creating one's own relief or getting the benefit of the TD being nearby should never come into play.

cgkdisc
Sep 27 2010, 05:00 PM
If earlier groups encountered the problem like the wasps before I got there and didn't deal with it in some way, I would ask for a courtesy violation or more (even DQ) for the group not being proactive to notify the TD or other players following of a hazard on the course that arose during the round or dealing with it themselves if that were possible. That's inexcusable not to protect other players from unexpected potential danger if known. The fact that the rules mention extended relief implies that there are situations where more distance is needed to avoid/bypass the hazard with "no penalty." Fortunately, the TD can provide that once known, even if not known until the middle or after the round.

SarahD
Sep 27 2010, 05:23 PM
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/photo.php?pid=31121947&id=1523241106&ref=fbx_album

my vote is for relief due to permanent scarrage. Evil plant

jconnell
Sep 27 2010, 05:33 PM
If earlier groups encountered the problem like the wasps before I got there and didn't deal with it in some way, I would ask for a courtesy violation or more (even DQ) for the group not being proactive to notify the TD or other players following of a hazard on the course that arose during the round or dealing with it themselves if that were possible. That's inexcusable not to protect other players from unexpected potential danger if known. The fact that the rules mention extended relief implies that there are situations where more distance is needed to avoid/bypass the hazard with "no penalty." Fortunately, the TD can provide that once known, even if not known until the middle or after the round.
Hang on now. Who's saying that my group hasn't or won't inform the TD or at least other players about the hazard? My point is that even with notifying fellow players and the TD, I'm going to proceed according to the rulebook absent knowing prior to the round that the TD has granted alternate or additional relief. To proceed any other way, to me, is circumventing the rules of play to gain an advantage. I can't go around the course making assumptions about how the TD would rule in a given situation, which is exactly what I'd be doing making up my own relief rules.

And as a TD, I shouldn't be making on-the-fly rulings mid-round with no practical way of disseminating the change to the rest of the tournament field, especially if the ruling, while supported tangentially by the rules, is not in line with any written rule available to the other players on the course. And the ruling in the example is, to me, the equivalent of just picking a random spot in the fairway, which I'm pretty sure isn't something that any rule in the book calls for.

cgkdisc
Sep 27 2010, 07:02 PM
However, provisionals are allowed. So players may take an extended relief provisional and also play the unplayable lie option if it's even possible to still play the hole safely. Even if the players take extended relief beyond 5m and the TD doesn't allow it later, the rulebook deals with this specifically by applying a penalty. The point is that players may take extended relief in unexpected unsafe situations normally handled by (extended) casual relief with the caveat that they can either also play a provisional rethrow unplayable lie with penalty or just wait and see if the TD will allow the relief or apply the penalty according to the rules.

wsfaplau
Sep 27 2010, 07:15 PM
If earlier groups encountered the problem like the wasps before I got there and didn't deal with it in some way, I would ask for a courtesy violation or more (even DQ) for the group not being proactive to notify the TD or other players following of a hazard on the course that arose during the round or dealing with it themselves if that were possible. That's inexcusable not to protect other players from unexpected potential danger if known. The fact that the rules mention extended relief implies that there are situations where more distance is needed to avoid/bypass the hazard with "no penalty." Fortunately, the TD can provide that once known, even if not known until the middle or after the round.

Stop digging Chuck you are just getting in deeper.

You would give the other groups a courtesy warning or try to get them DQed?
For what exactly? Please tell us how you know the wasps were there only AFTER the start of the round? Because if you don't know for sure.. they aren't a casual obstacle you can get relief from according to the rules.

Sounds like you landed on the rotting log which likely put part of the log between you and the hole (and certainly the swarming wasps were between you and the hole) which also means you don't get relief, especially since you can't demonstrate the wasps became a factor only AFTER the round started.

cgkdisc
Sep 27 2010, 07:54 PM
I'm saying if a wasp nest was discovered/stirred up on the main fairway by a previous group and they took no effort to inform/warn other groups or the TD, I would ask for a Courtesy Violation at minimum for putting other players in danger, especially if others got stung in the process of playing it later.

I don't understand the reluctance of some posting here to allow players and TDs to deal with unforeseen hazards in a manner consistent with the way the rulebook handles them when known in advance. It's been my experience that TDs aren't that heavy handed.

wsfaplau
Sep 28 2010, 02:31 PM
Chuck, the rules on casual obstacles and relief are pretty black and white.
You are ignoring that and trying to make them gray. They aren't.

Also, taking relief from an obstacle between your lie and the hole clearly isn't allowed.
You know a basic tenant of the rules are to play it where you lie.
Other areas of the rules ARE gray, but not here.

cgkdisc
Sep 28 2010, 02:44 PM
Chuck, the rules on casual obstacles and relief are pretty black and white.
Agreed. TDs granting extended relief is clearly allowed in the black & white casual relief rule where appropriate.
Also, taking relief from an obstacle between your lie and the hole clearly isn't allowed.
Not correct. The rules provide relief for obstacles that become a factor during the round.

veganray
Sep 28 2010, 03:36 PM
"During the round" is the only time an obstacle could possibly "become a factor". Before play begins & after it ends, such an object is merely a tree (or rock or wasps' nest or whatever) sitting happily in the woods, and is a "factor" of nothing.

eupher61
Oct 08 2010, 06:58 PM
803.05C(2):


Seems as black & white as anything in the rulebook, and a lot more than most things. If 5m on LOP from the original lie (NOT from the harmful animal & CERTAINLY NOT from the limit of the potential radius of danger associated with the harmful animal) of the is insufficient to get you the desired amount of relief, unplayable lie (with 1 stroke penalty & relocation either to a lie up to 10m on the LOP from the original lie OR to the previous lie) is the only permissible remedy.

UNLESS further relief is specified by the TD.

This puts the onus on the TD to have walked the entire course, noted specific areas of concern, probably marked them somehow (would be the best, but I don't think it's required) and announced it at the players' meeting or in the book, or both. That would go for any casual obstacle present before the round starts. Correct?
But, if a branch falls during a round, or a rockslide, or a sinkhole opens up, those are considered casual no matter what. Correct?
steve
(got my first Ace ever a few days ago...unwitnessed, fortunately, since it was Black.)

wsfaplau
Oct 10 2010, 02:32 PM
If you are certain that it became a factor during the round that is true..
For example, you play a hole in the morning round and there isn't a branch on the ground blocking part of the fairway. In the afternoon round it is there.

Did it become a factor during the round?

Not necessarily. Could have fallen after you played that hole during the morning round, could have become a factor between rounds, could have become a factor during the afternoon round.

The way the rule reads, no relief unless you know and in this case you don't.

cgkdisc
Oct 10 2010, 02:53 PM
The way the rule reads, no relief unless you know and in this case you don't.
Benefit of the doubt to the player...

Hoser
Oct 10 2010, 03:51 PM
Interesting logic, Chuck.

You're saying that if I come upon a fallen limb on the fairway, and I don't know if the limb became a factor during the round, that proves there's doubt about whether it became a factor during the round, and since I get benefit of doubt, ergo I get to treat the limb as if it became a factor during the round.

Congratulations, Chuck, you just yanked the teeth out of the obstacle rule.

cgkdisc
Oct 10 2010, 04:08 PM
Nope. The difference was the story Pete posted where the branch wasn't there during the morning round. The hole had already been played with no branch, thus indicating the change had occurred sometime since then. The benefit of the doubt is whether it happend during lunch or during the round.

On a related note, there's an assumption that the baskets are in "perfect" condition before the round starts. That allows players to straighten the chains, remove a branch from them, or in the case of temp baskets, level them out if they are tilted before throwing at them, even if the tangling or tilting actually happend before the round.

wsfaplau
Oct 11 2010, 01:12 PM
Wow Chuck. I am shocked we don't even agree on this.
I guess we just don't agree on the purpose of the rules.

I see the rules as a rigid (mostly) set of parameters in place to ensure competitors a level playing field as they compete against the course and each other for money and prizes. Some areas are a bit flexible but many situations are completely black and white and tell you exactly what is allowed and what isn't.

You seem to consider the rules, well, I'm not actually sure what you think about them. You often point out how flexible they are and how you would bend the rules to take extra relief off the line of play, or give the benefit to the player when on an obstacle became a factor when you have no evidence it became a factor during the round. Both cases clearly against black and white rules.

Are there other black and white rules violations you would ignore to give the benefit to a player? How about leaving the ground early on a jump putt? Is that possible to call or does the benefit always go to the player? How about calling someone on excessive time between shots? Ever possible? Or would the leaves rustling in the breeze be considered a distraction and restart the clock?

Are you in favor of a level playing field between players or do you prefer whoever can make the best argument in terms of "fairness" and "benefit of the doubt" gets to take whatever advantage they can get away with?

We just don't see eye to eye on the rules which is amazing to me.

cgkdisc
Oct 11 2010, 01:22 PM
Unattached obstacles are not intended to be in fairways along with vehicles, pedestrians, squirrels, open gates, etc., but sometimes they occur during the round. The rule is there so all players in theory get to play each hole the same way. The reality is that it never happens since the moving of the clock hands changes things but at least the rule allows things to be removed that shouldn't be there. And it should be applied that way by players.

In the case of the lunch break example, we know that players go out to their holes to warm up a little before the second round starts. If players saw the branch during warm-up, I guarantee it would have been moved before the round. So, I have no qualms giving the benefit of the doubt that the branch landed during round 2.

BTW, I'm probably more of a rules stickler than most of the marshals so you're getting an insight in how the rules are applied by those who have to make the calls regularly. Fairness and intent weigh more heavily in decisions on rules where there is still a grey area even if the words seem to be black and white.

veganray
Oct 11 2010, 01:38 PM
Fairness and intent weigh more heavily in decisions on rules where there is still a grey area even if the words seem to be black and white.

AKA "ignore the written rules to which everyone has access & make it up as you go". Extremely sad & disappointing in its inherent unfairness & potential for abuse, but unfortunately not too surprising. Where's the freakin' facepalm smiley when you need it?

wsfaplau
Oct 11 2010, 04:05 PM
BTW, I'm probably more of a rules stickler than most of the marshals so you're getting an insight in how the rules are applied by those who have to make the calls regularly. Fairness and intent weigh more heavily in decisions on rules where there is still a grey area even if the words seem to be black and white.

That is inherently UNFAIR. I come to a branch down situation and say well the rules clearly say since I don't know if that happened during the round I just have to deal with it. You are in the next group and ignore the black and white rule and if you can convince a marshall for a ruling you get a better deal than I did.

That isn't fair. If I am competing against you I guess I would need to call in a marshall after nearly every of my throws to see if I can come up with an argument to convince him the rules don't apply and I should get a break from the rules just to have a level playing field..

"Mr Marshall my disc is resting on top of the basket. I know the rules say it doesn't count but the fairness and intent tell me if I land my disc on or in the target I think it should count anyway, especially since my playing partner wedged his shot into the side of the basket and his counts. I know the rules are clear but I think I have a good argument because that isn't fair."

I guess we will all have to live with 5 or 6 hour rounds because if I have to ask for a ruling on everything to ensure fairness that is what I will have to do.

cgkdisc
Oct 11 2010, 04:30 PM
Such drama! The obstacle rule is inherently about good judgment. It's not black and white and is similar to when a group decides if a disc that can't be found is likely in the OB water versus lost. I can just see the TD trying to explain to the Park Dept why this person is asking the city for medical reimbursement when they got injured trying to throw from inside a downed tree limb. "Well ma'am, the group insisted the player throw from there because our rule required certainty that it came down during the round so it could be safely moved out of play."

Real world example at the St. Louis Mid-Nationals a few years ago. On the first hole of the Final 9, which was a blind shot down over a hill, as players got down the hill to their lies, we discovered a 3-foot leafy branch in the basket. The TD elected to remove the branch before anyone threw their upshots or putts. I was not the marshal but pointed out that the branch was almost certainly there before the Final 9 started and technically shouldn't come out. But I also said I thought that was good judgment on the part of the TD to remove it.

Hoser
Oct 11 2010, 04:56 PM
Chuck, for decades you have earned disc golfers� respect as one of the great minds in the sport and a source of wisdom and vision. But your reasoning on this thread sounds more like a befuddled bozo. (And I say that in the nicest possible way, vis-�-vis all the other bozos on this site, including myself.)

Please read back and carefully consider all the posts on the thread, and think deep about how �fairness� and �benefit of doubt� can best apply to the rulebook.

Hoser
Oct 11 2010, 05:21 PM
Chuck, like you, I DO want to remove that branch from the basket. I�m in favor of playing the course AS IT IS DESIGNED rather than AS YOU FIND IT. The game would be more fun, and more true to the designer�s skill challenge, if EVERYBODY ALWAYS cleaned up the course by removing ANYTHING that�s not attached to the ground, regardless of when it got there or where it is or how it affects anybody�s stance, run-up, throwing motion or flight path. I think it�s absurd for any capriously-located object to limit our strategy or performance, or for any rule ever to block us from constantly cleaning up the course and restoring its design.

But that�s not the way the PDGA obstacle rules are written. They guide us to play the course as we find it, with all random debris in place unless we�re sure it became a factor during the round. As dumb as it sounds, the way the rule is now written, if we come upon a branch in a basket, and we don�t know for sure that it became a factor during the round, that branch has to say in the basket. Same for the groups in front of us, and same for the groups behind us.

It�s not easy for me to take sides with that rule, Chuck. I think the obstacle rule is shortsighted and it serves the game poorly. Yet if we ignore rules just because we want to, we open a can of worms that will never stop slithering.

cgkdisc
Oct 11 2010, 05:31 PM
I'm as much a reporter as an interpreter on this thread. I've given real examples of how rulings have gone, none which I personally made. I happen to agree with the common sense rulings in each case and some of you disagree. I would not change anything I said regarding those incidents or how I would expect unusual circumstances on the fringes of black & white interpretaions to be handled in the future by other officials addressing these sometimes funky situations. I have many more incidents I've observed from the years behind the scenes as TD or official at World Championships. I've asked Dave to start compiling these Solomnesque judgments our officials have had to make over the years as a reference document for the sport.

Now maybe some of the rules can be written more clearly and maybe not. I don't think the RC feels some of these issues are critical enough to have rewritten them or they would have done so over the years since poison ivy and wasps have been around longer than disc golf. The judgments made one way or the other affected the game from a fairness standpoint less than a single cut-thru on our less than ideal targets for our game. Now that's something to be concerned about.

eupher61
Oct 11 2010, 07:48 PM
If you are certain that it became a factor during the round that is true..
For example, you play a hole in the morning round and there isn't a branch on the ground blocking part of the fairway. In the afternoon round it is there.

Did it become a factor during the round?

Not necessarily. Could have fallen after you played that hole during the morning round, could have become a factor between rounds, could have become a factor during the afternoon round.

The way the rule reads, no relief unless you know and in this case you don't.

So, you play a provisional. Don't make this more difficult than it is. It's not brain surgery. A provisional is the wonderful, all-purpose answer to the meaning of life. Use it.

steve

wsfaplau
Oct 12 2010, 05:51 PM
Real world example at the St. Louis Mid-Nationals a few years ago. On the first hole of the Final 9, which was a blind shot down over a hill, as players got down the hill to their lies, we discovered a 3-foot leafy branch in the basket. The TD elected to remove the branch before anyone threw their upshots or putts. I was not the marshal but pointed out that the branch was almost certainly there before the Final 9 started and technically shouldn't come out. But I also said I thought that was good judgment on the part of the TD to remove it.

I have no problem with removing this. Good judgment but ONLY because the tourney was still at a point where removing it from the first basket ensured all players played the same course under the same rules. Which I see as the intent of the rule. To ensure a level playing field.

wsfaplau
Oct 12 2010, 05:56 PM
I can just see the TD trying to explain to the Park Dept why this person is asking the city for medical reimbursement when they got injured trying to throw from inside a downed tree limb. "Well ma'am, the group insisted the player throw from there because our rule required certainty that it came down during the round so it could be safely moved out of play."



Actually the lady from the Park's department would say "Why didn't the guy take an unplayable lie penalty and get relief? Seems like you have a rule for that situation already but the guy didn't apply the rule? Don't your players know the rules? CLAIM DENIED!!!"

cgkdisc
Oct 12 2010, 06:03 PM
She would be more incredulous that our players believed our rules wouldn't allow the branch to be removed and potentially cause more injury to others following. The B & W rule for common sense (803.01F), benefit of the doubt to the player and ultimately the TDs judgment fortunately rule over any grey areas in the rules.

veganray
Oct 12 2010, 06:29 PM
After Chuck is done maniacally scribbling with his gray crayon, there are no more black & white areas left in his rulebook.

wsfaplau
Oct 12 2010, 06:32 PM
Except the common sense rule you cite only applies when other rules don't apply and they clearly do here.

I'm done with this.
Over and out.

Please post in advance when you will be Marshalling at a tourney.
Fair application of rules ensuring a level playing field amongst all players don't appear to be your strong suit.

jconnell
Oct 12 2010, 06:35 PM
She would be more incredulous that our players believed our rules wouldn't allow the branch to be removed and potentially cause more injury to others following. The B & W rule for common sense (803.01F), benefit of the doubt to the player and ultimately the TDs judgment fortunately rule over any grey areas in the rules.
This disconnect in this whole discussion is you keep saying there's a grey area where none exists. There is a B & W rule for obstacles already. The "grey area" you keep referring to is not a grey area of the rule book, but simply a desire not to voluntarily take a penalty stroke when the situation may call for it.

As I've stated before, the procedures are in place in the current rule book AS WRITTEN. The unplayable lie rule can always be applied provisionally, allowing for the TD to waive the penalty after the fact if there's a question of whether the obstacle in question should or could be considered a casual obstacle.

One of the primary purposes of the unplayable lie rule is to allow a player to avoid having to play from a place he/she considers dangerous, even if ultimately no one else, including the TD, agrees. The price paid (the penalty) is, as it should be, part of the risk/reward equation. No player is EVER forced to play from a location in which they feel unsafe.

cgkdisc
Oct 12 2010, 07:09 PM
The unplayable lie rule can always be applied provisionally, allowing for the TD to waive the penalty after the fact if there's a question of whether the obstacle in question should or could be considered a casual obstacle.
I do believe I posted that much earlier and agreed with this approach so I'm not sure what the problem is. The rule also applies the penalty if the player takes liberties on relief that the TD later denies. The disagreement appears to be whether as a marshal or TD, I should apply the penalty or allow the relief and that would depend. Considering the original post was about poison ivy, I've stated all along I would not grant relief without penalty.

Marshals have been advised to rarely make live calls. We allow the players to make them even if we might see foot faults, for example. Mostly we're confirming rulings made by players, sorting things out after the fact when issues are brought to us or just being a presence that tends to temper potential bad behavior in the groups we're watching. The only inconsistency that may occur in rulings is whether the player takes it upon themself to play a provisional or seek a ruling from the TD. TDs are likely to be consistent for the same request. But if a player doesn't ask, that's their own fault.

jconnell
Oct 12 2010, 07:33 PM
I do believe I posted that much earlier and agreed with this approach so I'm not sure what the problem is. The rule also applies the penalty if the player takes liberties on relief that the TD later denies. The disagreement appears to be whether as a marshal or TD, I should apply the penalty or allow the relief and that would depend. Considering the original post was about poison ivy, I've stated all along I would not grant relief without penalty.
I guess my "problem" is with the continued use of the phrase "grey areas" in the thread. There really are no grey areas in the rules with regard to any of the scenarios presented (the PI, bees, branches in the fairway, etc). Either the casual obstacles rule applies or the unplayable lie rule applies. The Fairness rule or benefit of the doubt really shouldn't enter the equation, at least in on-the-fly, on the course rulings by players, officials, marshalls or TDs. After the fact stuff, such as TDs removing penalty strokes upon appeal, is where the grey areas may appear, but IMO that's all down to the individual TDs/officials making calls on a case by case basis.

Marshals have been advised to rarely make live calls.
Well, that unfortunately is likely the explanation of something that occurred at the Presidents' Cup last week. According to a pair of witnesses, a player committed a blatant stance violation (foot fault) that went entirely uncalled. Our shock upon discussing the occurrence was that each foursome was assigned a PDGA marshall whose sole responsibility was officiating that group, and he was watching the violation as it occurred, but said nothing. We figured this marshall was just as unobservant or afraid to make a call as 98% of all players (including the other three highly rated, highly regarded professionals in the playing group).

It's sad to learn that perhaps he/she did see it and said nothing because he/she was instructed to not make calls, only confirm/officiate player-made calls. If marshalls and/or non-playing officials are instructed specifically to not actively make calls as they see them, then what is the point of their being there? I know rules officials in ball golf are told not to advise players prior to committing violations unless asked, but they certainly can call them on it after the fact (Dustin Johnson grounding his club at the PGAs a few weeks ago, for example).

Probably a topic for another thread, though, rather than continuing to bog this one down.

cgkdisc
Oct 12 2010, 07:42 PM
I think part of the reason Marshals are advised not to actively make calls or be the first person to call it is for the very reason discussed in this thread - consistency or fairness. Since not all groups can have marshals at events from C-tier up thru NT events, the idea is that we continue to be a self-officiated sport. So a marshal is more of a bonus TD who may be close enough to assist with but usually not initiate rulings. As mentioned before, one of the more important reasons behind the creation of the marshal program was related to behavioral issues on tour. The number of behavioral incidents has come down since the program started so it's been successful in that arena at least.

veganray
Oct 12 2010, 08:37 PM
The number of behavioral incidents has come down since the program started so it's been successful in that arena at least.
I'd like to read an independent - or at least not blatantly 'blind homer' partisan - cost/benefit analysis of this.

cgkdisc
Oct 12 2010, 10:11 PM
It's an area that is regularly discussed by the Board in regard to how much it is needed for the NT program. However, they will have even more responsibilities for helping run both Worlds in the future so I don't see it going away.

eupher61
Oct 15 2010, 03:34 PM
I"ve come to a realilzation of late. Chuck sticks to his guns, doesn't he?

In the face of whatever evidence, discreditation, mockery, or scorn, his approach to questions here doesn't change.

Just like his picture.

Good or bad, liked or not, he presents his opinions in a consistent and respectful manner. Too bad he doesn't get the same respect in return.

The world would be a little better if that could happen. Don't cut out disagreements, just cut out disrespect.