krupicka
Nov 17 2010, 04:14 PM
There has been rumors of a 2011 Rules Update, but there has been no mention of it in the Board Minutes. Is this still happening? If so, do we have an anticipated release date?

I would have sent this question to the RC via the contact page, but http://www.pdga.com/contact is returning "HTTP 500 - Internal server error " for me.

cgkdisc
Nov 17 2010, 04:25 PM
Might be overloaded with ruling requests...

The new combined Rules and Competition Manual booklets are being printed and will be sent with the 2011 renewal packets. Not sure when those will go out but likely sometime in December if you've renewed.

krupicka
Dec 03 2010, 10:21 AM
I received the 2011 rules yesterday in the mail. Too bad they aren't online yet.

ishkatbible
Dec 09 2010, 01:55 PM
when are they expected online? anybody know?

krupicka
Dec 09 2010, 02:26 PM
I asked this morning:

"Probably next week --
we are waiting for 2010 to calm down to avoid confusion." - D. Gentry

davidsauls
Dec 10 2010, 09:17 AM
Is there a list of changes, or at least substantive changes, anywhere on this site?

nez
Dec 10 2010, 10:06 AM
Taken directly from the 2011 PDGA Official Rules of Play:

Summary of Rules Changes

Definitions of the basket and its components have been added to the Glossary so that we no longer have to use the phrase "entrapment section ".

The definition of holing out has been tightened up a bit. A putt that sticks in the side of the tray, or hangs outside the tray from one of the nubs, no longer counts.

The hole has been completed once the disc has come to rest, not when the disc is removed.

The "unplayable lie" rule has been reformulated into an "optional rethrow" rule. It is now clear that penalty strokes are not added if the rethrow option is taken, so that double jeopardy is avoided.

The rules for a lie above ground have been changed to include a lie below ground (in a crevice or below a bridge, for example).

The relief rules have been simplified. You can’t move anything unless it’s in your stance. If something is both in your stance and between your lie and the hole, you can move it. You can always ask people to move themselves or their stuff if they are in your way.

The 5-meter relief rule has been extended to anywhere back along the line of play, and moved to the relief Section .

A director may designate a drop zone to be used for lost disc on a hole.

davidsauls
Dec 10 2010, 10:31 AM
Thanks.

I'll await the details, but I appreciate having an idea of what changes I'll be adapting to.

cgkdisc
Dec 10 2010, 10:31 AM
...

pterodactyl
Dec 10 2010, 11:59 AM
The "unplayable lie" rule has been reformulated into an "optional rethrow" rule. It is now clear that penalty strokes are not added if the rethrow option is taken, so that double jeopardy is avoided.

.

Not sure if I understand this. You miss a 10-footer and it goes to the bottom of Santa Cruz Canyon: call it unplayable and putt again (rethrow) without a penalty stroke.
What am I missing here?

cgkdisc
Dec 10 2010, 12:25 PM
I can see how that statement is confusing. It refers to the double jeopardy that can occur if the 2-meter rule is in effect. With the current rule, if you land above 2m and you bring your disc down into the middle of a massive pine tree, you have to add another penalty for unplayable lie to the 2m penalty if you want to rethrow from the original lie. With the new rules in 2011, you can claim an Optional Rethrow (not called Unplayable Lie anymore) anytime and rethrow from the previous lie with just a 1-throw penalty regardless if your throw missed a mando, is above 2m, lost, in a casual relief area or went OB.

pterodactyl
Dec 10 2010, 01:51 PM
It's good that it's not called unplayable lie any more, because usually the lie "is" playable.

jabruzzo3
Dec 10 2010, 09:21 PM
Does anyone know when will the on-line Rules Proficiency Exam be available?

rhett
Dec 22 2010, 04:00 PM
I like the optional rethrow rule changes as they make things more fair between mandys, OB, and 2 meter rule.

I don't understand why we had to make holing out so much more complicated when a much simpler and far "easier to call on the course" change would be to simply allow DROT to count. Is DROT really that big of a freaking deal that its exclusion must be kept in tact even though it overly complicates the basic rule of the game for such a rare occurrence?

Seriously, how many times do you see a DROT in a year? I see far more lucky/unlucky tree whacks and tiny ground imperfections that save/screw a bad/good shot with OB. So much more so that the overall "luck factor" involved in a round of disc golf is unaffected by the rare DROT. What I'm saying is that there is a lot of luck involved in your round and DROT is such a tiny part of it that I truly believe it makes no real difference.

Also what's with not having to retrieve your disc to complete the hole? I just can't get my head around how we can put this laissez-faire type of "who cares let's just play casual" type of thing into the same revision that is getting all techical on what counts as "in". Okay, so now you have to enter the basket from above the rim and under the chain-stay and your disc mus come to rest supported by the chains and/or pole, but who cares if you pull it out.

Oh well, I still miss being required to mark your lie and having to pull the disc out yourself. But that's just me. :)

johnrock
Dec 22 2010, 09:28 PM
I like the optional rethrow rule changes as they make things more fair between mandys, OB, and 2 meter rule.

I don't understand why we had to make holing out so much more complicated when a much simpler and far "easier to call on the course" change would be to simply allow DROT to count. Is DROT really that big of a freaking deal that its exclusion must be kept in tact even though it overly complicates the basic rule of the game for such a rare occurrence?

Seriously, how many times do you see a DROT in a year? I see far more lucky/unlucky tree whacks and tiny ground imperfections that save/screw a bad/good shot with OB. So much more so that the overall "luck factor" involved in a round of disc golf is unaffected by the rare DROT. What I'm saying is that there is a lot of luck involved in your round and DROT is such a tiny part of it that I truly believe it makes no real difference.

Also what's with not having to retrieve your disc to complete the hole? I just can't get my head around how we can put this laissez-faire type of "who cares let's just play casual" type of thing into the same revision that is getting all techical on what counts as "in". Okay, so now you have to enter the basket from above the rim and under the chain-stay and your disc mus come to rest supported by the chains and/or pole, but who cares if you pull it out.

Oh well, I still miss being required to mark your lie and having to pull the disc out yourself. But that's just me. :)

I didn't realize that shots going through the side won't count. I thought it was just ones that stick in the side that don't count. If you can't see the basket when you throw, how do you know how it got in the basket if it's sitting in there when you get to it?

MTL21676
Dec 22 2010, 09:49 PM
I didn't realize that shots going through the side won't count. I thought it was just ones that stick in the side that don't count. If you can't see the basket when you throw, how do you know how it got in the basket if it's sitting in there when you get to it?


The rules school on the front page basically says that if you see it occur, it doesn't count. But a throw in that goes in blindly from around the corner that wedges counts because you can't say for sure that it wedged from the outside.

I personally am someone who wedges a lot of putts - especially in the summer. And I am very much in favor of these changes. Making it tougher to putt, which this does to a very small degree, is a good thing. Disc golf is way too easy.

I'm glad the casual water relief rule has changed. Most of the time that rule was pointless during bad weather because 5M back was still in the water.

And the rule about not being able to move things crossing your lie was unsafe. Glad this was changed back.

cgkdisc
Dec 22 2010, 10:05 PM
I'm glad the casual water relief rule has changed. Most of the time that rule was pointless during bad weather because 5M back was still in the water.
You still only get up to 5m free relief (unless TD provides more). Anything more than that will cost you a 1-shot penalty but at least you can now go far enough back on the LOP or throw from your previous lie to get clear of the water if needed.

MTL21676
Dec 22 2010, 10:12 PM
You still only get up to 5m free relief (unless TD provides more). Anything more than that will cost you a 1-shot penalty but at least you can now go far enough back on the LOP or throw from your previous lie to get clear of the water if needed.

wow I misread that. I thought the penalty past 5M was only in situations of unplayable lie.

So in summary you are saying that if you choose to go more than 5M, you take a 1 throw penalty and you have to either play from the previous lie or in the line of flight to the lie?

I'm running an even the third weekend in January and need to get this stuff down!

cgkdisc
Dec 22 2010, 10:43 PM
What was not clear about this in the Rules School?

"If the casual item can’t be moved, like water or a bee hive, the player may take free relief up to 5m back on the line of play like before. If players require additional relief beyond 5m, they may invoke either the new Optional Relief rule (803.05C) and go back on the line of play as far as they desire with a one-throw penalty. Or, decide to declare the Optional Rethrow discussed previously and return to their original lie and throw again with a one-throw penalty."

If you are the TD, you can also identify a drop zone or allow free relief for more than 5m for casual hazards.

chappyfade
Dec 23 2010, 03:34 AM
Haven't gone through all of the changes with a fine tooth comb, by my reaction to the changes are mixed, but mostly good. The Drop Zone option for TDs for lost discs is a good idea. I like part of the new hole-out rule....the part about not having to remove the disc for the shot to count as holed out.....means the Blaine Kinkel Bowling Green "incident" is now covered by rule. It does leave a little to the imagination though. You're still going to have to clear that inside-out wedgie before it falls out...otherwise probably the disc will not be deemed to have been "at rest" if it falls out after seemingly have been at rest for 10 seconds or more, while you run the 280 feet to clear that ace that apparently wedged from inside out. Not an easy feat for this man.

The committee and the BoD missed badly on the rest of the hole out rule. Nez said above that they "tightened" up the rule. Actually, they made it even less clear than before...and more open to interpretation, which is a bad thing for holing out, IMHO. Holing out should be clear and not open to interpretation...this is the fundamental way to score in our sport, and is one of the most important rules in the book. They had an opportunity to simplify the rule by simply counting the very rare DROT. Instead they decided to not count the wedgies they can see, as opposed to the ones they couldn't see. That means two discs could get wedged into the tray in exactly the same way, and one would count as being holed out, and the other one wouldn't, just because we could see how one got there, and couldn't see how the other one got there. I think this one is open to abuse as well. Probably in practice it won't be that big a deal...mostly, but it COULD have been SO much simpler and clear. It's too bad. I feel like we've taken a giant leap backwards with this one.

The other rules look fine. One point of clarification....can one take a penalty throw and go back on the line of play as far as they want in any situation? That's not clear from the summary of changes. If so, I think it's a good change.

Chap

krupicka
Dec 23 2010, 09:08 AM
I'd agree 803.13.B is really poorly written. Just because some have a beef with DROTs and Wedgies, we a have really screwed up rule. I like how not only do you have to look at the rule and the definition, you also need to look at the summary of changes paragraph. I do not read that a disc supported by a nub no longer counts from the rule. If a disc is hanging on the outside of the basket by a nub, it is usually supported by its contact on the inside of the nub. And having a if you saw it portion is such a cop-out.

And they still didn't fix 802.04.B Artificial Devices. It is still technically against the rules to carry on iPhone during the round even if silenced. Get with the times people!

jconnell
Dec 23 2010, 09:10 AM
And they still didn't fix 802.04.B Artificial Devices. It is still technically against the rules to carry on iPhone during the round even if silenced. Get with the times people!
How does artificial devices ban iPhones specifically? I read the rule, and I don't see what you are saying.

krupicka
Dec 23 2010, 09:22 AM
Under 802.04.A, GPS devices are prohibited as an artificial device. An iPhone is a GPS device. Under 802.04.B. Merely carrying an artificial device (even if not used) is an automatic 2 throw penalty.

cgkdisc
Dec 23 2010, 09:41 AM
The other rules look fine. One point of clarification....can one take a penalty throw and go back on the line of play as far as they want in any situation? That's not clear from the summary of changes. If so, I think it's a good change.
So far, only for extended casual relief with a one throw penalty under the new Optional Relief clause.

futurecollisions
Dec 23 2010, 12:08 PM
Under 802.04.A, GPS devices are prohibited as an artificial device. An iPhone is a GPS device. Under 802.04.B. Merely carrying an artificial device (even if not used) is an automatic 2 throw penalty.

iPod has a gps and google maps app as well

james_mccaine
Dec 23 2010, 01:15 PM
No non-anal person is ever going to claim that a cell phone or ipod, since it has GPS capability, is prohibited under the artificial device rule.

Yeah, add another paragraph for the simpleton who cannot determine the intent of the rule. Then people will complain about the added length to the rulebook.

krupicka
Dec 23 2010, 01:54 PM
Or you get rid of the part that says "or carrying". Problem solved.

ishkatbible
Dec 23 2010, 03:53 PM
Also what's with not having to retrieve your disc to complete the hole?

i thought that just meant that someone else could pull it out for you if they were closer and you had to run to get it out so someone else could putt. maybe speed of play type thing.

cgkdisc
Dec 23 2010, 04:18 PM
The player not having to retrieve their own shot from the target to hole out also stops penalties where a player forgets their putter in the basket and remembers after teeing off on the next hole.

pterodactyl
Dec 24 2010, 12:47 AM
Under 802.04.A, GPS devices are prohibited as an artificial device. An iPhone is a GPS device. Under 802.04.B. Merely carrying an artificial device (even if not used) is an automatic 2 throw penalty.

That rule was put in the book to discourage snapchingers.

chappyfade
Dec 24 2010, 02:49 AM
So far, only for extended casual relief with a one throw penalty under the new Optional Relief clause.

Wonder why they stopped there, seems like a natural thing to allow for all situations. I clamored for this when the 2m rule was still in effect in all of the land as a way of relief. Of course, I could just claim there's an obstacle to my stance and take as much relief as I want on the line of play with a one-throw penalty, so I guess the net result is the same.

cgkdisc
Dec 24 2010, 09:17 AM
I don't think you could do what you suggest unless the obstacle to your stance goes back on the LOP at least 5m (tree trunk?) where you could then invoke the infinite LOP relief with a 1-shot penalty. I agree that if you're taking a penalty, then moving back on the line of play could be an option similar to how they allow that for some hazards in ball golf. But the RC went the other way and eliminated the 5m relief in the new Optional Rethrow rule replacing Unplayable.

DShelton
Dec 24 2010, 02:11 PM
Under 802.04.A, GPS devices are prohibited as an artificial device. An iPhone is a GPS device. Under 802.04.B. Merely carrying an artificial device (even if not used) is an automatic 2 throw penalty.

To be more specific, it it an artificial measuring device which is capable of measuring more than 10 meters. This also includes the Android phones as well.

Honestly though, as long as the person doesn't pull the phone out in the middle of the round, I would have no problem with them having it on them. Keep it silenced and don't pull it out, even for a quick text message.

Patrick P
Dec 25 2010, 06:40 AM
A little clarification on the rule changes:

My shot lands above 2m in a tree. Can I now choose to mark my lie on the LOP from the tree as far back as I want and only take a one penalty stroke?

cgkdisc
Dec 25 2010, 09:34 AM
No. The LOP relief as far back as you want (with a 1-throw penalty) is only available when taking extended Optional Relief (803.05C) from a casual relief area. Your options when landing above 2m when that penalty is in effect is to mark directly below or return to the previous lie and it's a 1-shot penalty either way.

rhett
Dec 28 2010, 12:41 PM
The player not having to retrieve their own shot from the target to hole out also stops penalties where a player forgets their putter in the basket and remembers after teeing off on the next hole.

And that's a good thing because we all know that any penalty stroke is a gross miscarriage of disc golf justice and a personal affront to anyone earning said penalty.

I envision a post-tourney course with 72 putters piled up in each basket...

cgkdisc
Dec 28 2010, 12:58 PM
What sport requires the player to retrieve their shot before it counts? Do hockey players go in the goal to get the puck? Do basketball players have to catch their shots as they come thru the hoop? Do golfers have to retrieve their ball from the hole? All the new rule does is recognize that the hole is over when the disc comes to rest in the proper way in the target.

veganray
Dec 28 2010, 01:40 PM
what sport requires the player to retrieve their shot before it counts?

mta

cgkdisc
Dec 28 2010, 02:02 PM
(of course, a "no catch" technically counts ;-)

JerryChesterson
Dec 28 2010, 02:39 PM
What sport requires the player to retrieve their shot before it counts?

mta

Frisbee Dog

rutgersgolfer
Dec 28 2010, 02:59 PM
Would someone please explain the sentence under 803.01C - "A provisional throw may not be subsequently declared to be an optional rethrow." The wording of the Rules School on this really confused me:

GENERAL – Provisional Throws: 803.01C
Although not directly part of the Optional Rethrow rule, the new rule for Provisional Throws clarifies that a player may not later declare a throw they first called a Provisional as their Optional Rethrow. The player must go back and make an optional rethrow (if that's what they decided is the best option) and not use that provisional throw after seeing the results of the provisional and the original throw.

krazyeye
Dec 28 2010, 04:47 PM
Confuses me too. So what is a provisional if it is not an optional rethrow? A waste of time.

ibgollie
Dec 28 2010, 04:51 PM
803.13 Holing Out "...In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray...."

I don't see how this can eliminate DROTs. Is the tray defined anywhere as having a inside and outside wall with a top surface? If the disc is resting on the tray it can arguably be defended as being supported by the "inside wall" of the tray as well as the top and "outside wall". The rule doesn't say wholly supported by the inside wall, chains, pole etc.

Also, how is the inside and outside of the tray defined? For example, a disc hanging off the tray on the outside of the basket, how can you say that it's not supported by the "inside wall". What about a disc that is hanging on a nub, but has entered the target properly and is hanging on the inside of the tray vs the outside? Same argument for a disc balancing on the tray. The tray is generally made of circular wire and sometimes is a irrregular surface. (i.e. DGA baskets)

I think this is a bad rule change. It was simple before, supported by chains or tray. Now you could have 2 wedgies and one wouldn't count and one would.

A wedgie that was a low putt = no good.
A wedgie that wedged going out = good. (because it entered the entrapment device correctly and is supported by the "inside cylinder")
DROT = arguement because it is not well enough defined.

If they don't want wedgies and DROTs to count they should just say "Wedgies and DROTs don't count" and give an illustration of each. That would be simpler.

DShelton
Dec 28 2010, 06:19 PM
Would someone please explain the sentence under 803.01C - "A provisional throw may not be subsequently declared to be an optional rethrow." The wording of the Rules School on this really confused me:

GENERAL – Provisional Throws: 803.01C
Although not directly part of the Optional Rethrow rule, the new rule for Provisional Throws clarifies that a player may not later declare a throw they first called a Provisional as their Optional Rethrow. The player must go back and make an optional rethrow (if that's what they decided is the best option) and not use that provisional throw after seeing the results of the provisional and the original throw.

First imagine you tee off and think that you may be lost, so you throw a provisional just in case. When you get to your original throw, you find the disc in bounds, but your lie is horrible.

What the rule says is that you may not use the provisional throw as an optional re-throw. If you want to use the optional re-throw, you have to go back to the tee and re-throw. from there.

frogponddiver
Dec 28 2010, 09:43 PM
Chuck, Can a player declare an optional rethrow and take the additional stroke at any time during play? For example, you tee off and your drive goes deep into the woods. you know that getting out will cost you several strokes. Does the player have the option of taking teh optional rethrow and throw their third shot from the tee? Is there any talk of this being used to circumvent the normal course of play? As I read the rule, this appears to be allowed at any time without any ruling from the group/

bruce_brakel
Dec 29 2010, 12:05 AM
The optional rethrow is not a new rule. It used to be the "unplayable lie" rule. The only change is in the name, and in the allowance for unlimited relief away from the basket on the line of play. Previously, line of play relief was limited to 5 meters.

cgkdisc
Dec 29 2010, 12:36 AM
The Unplayable Lie rule was slightly diffrent from the renamed Optional rethrow rule in two ways. The word "lie" was the hangup in the old rule such that you weren't allowed to cal an unplayable until you had a lie. In which case, when you were above 2m or had missed the mando, you didn't have a lie until you first marked below the tree or at he mando drop zone, respectively. Now, you can call the Optional Rethrow anytime, anywhere whether inbounds or OB. The other way the rule changed is eliminating the up to 5m from your disc location. You always go back to your original lie if you call the Optional Rethrow.

Bruce, the Optional Rethrow doesn't allow unlimited movement back on the LOP. That's the new Optional Relief rule where you can take unlimited relief back on the LOP with a 1-throw penalty but only when taking additional relief more than 5m back from a casual relief area.

frogponddiver
Dec 29 2010, 08:03 PM
The Unplayable Lie rule was slightly diffrent from the renamed Optional rethrow rule in two ways. The word "lie" was the hangup in the old rule such that you weren't allowed to cal an unplayable until you had a lie. In which case, when you were above 2m or had missed the mando, you didn't have a lie until you first marked below the tree or at he mando drop zone, respectively. Now, you can call the Optional Rethrow anytime, anywhere whether inbounds or OB. The other way the rule changed is eliminating the up to 5m from your disc location. You always go back to your original lie if you call the Optional Rethrow.

Bruce, the Optional Rethrow doesn't allow unlimited movement back on the LOP. That's the new Optional Relief rule where you can take unlimited relief back on the LOP with a 1-throw penalty but only when taking additional relief more than 5m back from a casual relief area.
Chuck, I understand the rule exactly as you have explained. I still need clarification though. The old "unplayable lie" was not something that you encountered in your everyday play. Is the intention of the new optional rethrow rule to allow players to use this as the need dictates? Will there be any guidance on it's use? I see this as a get out of jail card, albeit with one stroke penalty, but in some cases, that may be a blessing. It appears to me that this new interpretation will lead to the ise of this rule much more often.

cgkdisc
Dec 30 2010, 12:34 AM
It has always been a "get out of jail" card for a hundred years in ball golf and in disc golf since it started with our first rulebook in 1982. Whether people use it or not was partly based on the knowledge of how it could be used. Now more are understanding where it might help them. No one willingly wants to penalize themself with a shot and distance penalty but sometimes it can be a sensible play. No one in golf or disc golf believes anyone should ever be penalized more than the equivalent of shot and distance no matter how bad a throw may be.

jconnell
Dec 30 2010, 09:55 AM
Chuck, I understand the rule exactly as you have explained. I still need clarification though. The old "unplayable lie" was not something that you encountered in your everyday play. Is the intention of the new optional rethrow rule to allow players to use this as the need dictates? Will there be any guidance on it's use? I see this as a get out of jail card, albeit with one stroke penalty, but in some cases, that may be a blessing. It appears to me that this new interpretation will lead to the ise of this rule much more often.
The intent of the new rule is only to remove the stigma associated with the old name of the rule. Nothing more. The controversy over the old name came from folks who objected to someone declaring an unplayable lie when the lie was, in their view, "playable". Now, the same player can invoke the same rule without anyone complaining or arguing that the lie is "playable".

I think the only rise associated with the optional re-throw will be a bump in awareness of the rule because of the attention it is getting right now as a part of the rule book update. Once that dies down, I imagine it will be utilized as frequently as the old unplayable lie rule was. In other words, extremely rarely.

gumbputt
Dec 30 2010, 10:19 AM
I printed the rule book from the download provided by the PDGA.

I noticed that since they used grey for the paragraphs it came so through so light it was difficult to read. Is there a way they could make a printable version that would come through clearer, such as all black type?

cgkdisc
Dec 30 2010, 10:45 AM
Try to set your print properties to Black & White in the Print Setup window where it probably says Color or Grayscale. The gray text should print black then.

gumbputt
Dec 30 2010, 12:30 PM
Thanks, I am getting it all black now.
For me it was:
Print > Properties > Advanced > Document Opitions > Printing Features > Print All Text as Black > Switch to Enable > Graphics Mode > Switch to send as a Vector


Just in case anybody else has an issue.

rutgersgolfer
Dec 30 2010, 08:31 PM
Thank you DShelton for clarifying the provisional/rethrow for me.

Chuck, is it allowable to declare Optional Relief anywhere? Why must it be only in the case of extending Casual Relief? Not that I see myself ever using it, but maybe you'd want to take a stroke penalty and back up your lie (better angle around an obstacle, follow through without whacking your arm on a tree, or even backing up behind a completed mando for the purpose of disregarding it). Granted you're probably always better off not trying this, but is it legal?

frogponddiver
Jan 01 2011, 06:42 PM
Thank you DShelton for clarifying the provisional/rethrow for me.

Chuck, is it allowable to declare Optional Relief anywhere? Why must it be only in the case of extending Casual Relief? Not that I see myself ever using it, but maybe you'd want to take a stroke penalty and back up your lie (better angle around an obstacle, follow through without whacking your arm on a tree, or even backing up behind a completed mando for the purpose of disregarding it). Granted you're probably always better off not trying this, but is it legal?

A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: With the exception of casual obstacles to a stance as described in 803.05 B, a player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc), which is considered part of the course. A player is allowed to request that other people remove themselves and/or their belongings from the player's stance or line of play. A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.

B. Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are in the stance or run-up area: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, 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).

C. Optional Relief: A player may declare that he or she is taking optional relief. The lie may then be relocated to a new lie that is no closer to the hole, and on the line of play. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.

Based on the above, it appears to me that optional relief is only available for items in in B. above. You may take optional relief farther than the allowed 5 meters if any of the circumstances indicated in B are true.

PDGAStaff
Jan 01 2011, 07:36 PM
Chuck, is it allowable to declare Optional Relief anywhere? Why must it be only in the case of extending Casual Relief? Not that I see myself ever using it, but maybe you'd want to take a stroke penalty and back up your lie (better angle around an obstacle, follow through without whacking your arm on a tree, or even backing up behind a completed mando for the purpose of disregarding it).
(This is Chuck) Looks like the PDGA may have turned off posting rights for non-renewed members effective today?

I think the RC has considered the possibility to give players the option to take unlimited relief on the LOP (with penalty) from any lie, similar to ball golf, but maybe weren't comfortable with pulling the trigger on that just yet. I think the difference is vertical objects (mainly trees) are much more important in playing our game. Giving players the option to take just a one shot penalty any time and move back just as far as needed to get regular course obstacles out of the way (not casual objects) may have seemed a little too liberal compared with moving back to the previous lie with the Optional Rethrow rule where it's pretty close to a 2-shot penalty.

krupicka
Jan 02 2011, 05:08 PM
A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: With the exception of casual obstacles to a stance as described in 803.05 B, a player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc), which is considered part of the course. A player is allowed to request that other people remove themselves and/or their belongings from the player's stance or line of play. A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.

B. Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are in the stance or run-up area: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, 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).

C. Optional Relief: A player may declare that he or she is taking optional relief. The lie may then be relocated to a new lie that is no closer to the hole, and on the line of play. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.

Based on the above, it appears to me that optional relief is only available for items in in B. above. You may take optional relief farther than the allowed 5 meters if any of the circumstances indicated in B are true.

There is a difference between optional relief (803.05.C) and optional rethrow (803.06). An optional rethrow is not qualified by 803.05.B and can be taken any time.

heernt
Jan 12 2011, 05:40 PM
We had an interesting scenario that we couldn't resolve...

If a large branch was in the fairway and a branch off that branch is tall and blocking your view to the basket, it would seem fair that you couldn't move it. However, if the branch is impeding your stance or runup, can you move it out of the way and give yourself a clear shot? We couldn't decide if the new rules allow one to move it completely out of the way, or just move it enough to get a clean stance at your lie. More importantly, the new rules seem to say one MUST try to move it before taking the few inches of relief needed to get a clean stance. Anyone?

cgkdisc
Jan 12 2011, 05:54 PM
Under new rules you can move it. The majority of the time, the dead branches to be moved will be small and mostly flat on the ground. Yes, you might once in a while find the bigger branch with smaller branches projecting up in the air. But the odds of having the big branch, a player's lie and a projecting branch blocking the route is so small as to not be worth worrying about. Ideally, you would hope those types of branches had been cleared or cut up into smaller segments by the course crew or TD.

wsfaplau
Jan 13 2011, 12:14 AM
First of all Chuck the chances of that happening are not that remote if you play heavily wooded or mountain courses in Colorado. It happens all the time.

is the branch at all behind your lie?
If it isn't I don't think you can move it even with the new rules.
You can move it if it impedes your stance or run up.
If the branch is completely in front of your lie how can it be in your stance or run up?
The rule says nothing about your follow through.
The rule says nothing about you getting your preferred stance.
In fact rule 803.05A clearly says you must choose a stance that results in the least movement of any obstacle.

Given a choice between you moving an obstacle to take your preferred backhand stance and NOT moving the obstacle and being forced to take a less preferred forehand stance and throw the choice is obvious.

Rule 803.05A clearly requires you to choose a stance where you don't move the obstacle.
Rule 803.05 B clearly says if the obstacle is in your stance you must first attempt to move the obstacle.

So which is it?
Are you required to take a stance to NOT move the obstacle or must you attempt to move it?

This changed rule is NOT an improvement.

cgkdisc
Jan 13 2011, 12:45 AM
I think you need to read 803.04D first which is the general rule regarding stance that indicates least movement of permanent or integral obstacles. Living foliage would be included. Dead branches, leaves and debris not so much since their status as casual obstacles is covered by the rewrite of 803.05. If the dead branch is movable and part of it is in your preferred stance or run-up, you can now move it even if part is in front of or behind your lie. If it's not easily movable like a downed tree trunk, you can use solid object relief in 803.04E or casual relief in 803.05B which usually would give you about the same relief back on the LOP.

heernt
Jan 13 2011, 01:39 PM
Thanks Chuck. We're still a bit confused, if your feet are clear but the branch is leaning back and impeding your arm motion, does that mean it can be moved because it is impeding your stance? Here in Colorado, a lot of our mountain courses have brush piles, downed trees (darn beetle kill), branches, and debris. We love playing these types of courses, however need to follow the PDGA rules as we have a lot of sanctioned tournaments here and need to make the rules clear to everyone who plays.

cgkdisc
Jan 13 2011, 02:23 PM
As I understand the rule regarding movement of dead branches or other casual obstacles, they must be on the playing surface in your stance or run-up, not projections off the ground. For example, let's say there's a downed log parallel to your line of play maybe two feet away. There's a branch coming off the top of the log that projects into your line of play around 2 feet off the ground behind your marker. I don't believe the rule allows you to break it or move that out of your way before throwing. You don't even get relief moving back from the branch but you can have incidental contact with it as a result of your run-up or throwing motion. But if that same branch was not above the ground but on it, you could take relief.

wsfaplau
Jan 13 2011, 08:18 PM
I think you need to read 803.04D first which is the general rule regarding stance that indicates least movement of permanent or integral obstacles. Living foliage would be included. Dead branches, leaves and debris not so much since their status as casual obstacles is covered by the rewrite of 803.05. If the dead branch is movable and part of it is in your preferred stance or run-up, you can now move it even if part is in front of or behind your lie. If it's not easily movable like a downed tree trunk, you can use solid object relief in 803.04E or casual relief in 803.05B which usually would give you about the same relief back on the LOP.


Chuck, Chuck, Chuck...

What are we going to do with you? In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan "there you go again".

Please show me what rule allows you to take your preferred stance. I'll help you out. I searched the PDF rules and the word "preferred" isn't in the rulebook at all.

In trying to explain your view of the rule you added the word preferred and even made it bold.

WHY???

The rules say you can take a stance, they don't ever say you can take your preferred stance.

This rule change makes things worse and not better.

wsfaplau
Jan 13 2011, 09:01 PM
Rule 803.04D says "a player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course." Chuck pointed out this refers to living foliage.

Rule 803.05A says "A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle."

NOT moving an something in your stance results in less movement than moving something.
The rules REQUIRE you to take a stance that require you to NOT move it if you can.

Yet 803.05B says in part 'The player must first attempt to move the obstacle".

You show me a player taking a stance near any obstacle and whether they move the obstacle or not I can call a stance violation on them and give them a penalty throw under the new rules.

And still, no where in the rules does it say that a player is entitled to their preferred stance.

This rule change makes things worse instead of better.

cgkdisc
Jan 14 2011, 12:59 AM
Sorry Pete. You seem to have difficulty making the distinction between obstacles that can be moved and those that can't. I believe it's very clear that there are certain obstacles you can get casual relief from IF they are in your stance or run-up. The least movement clause has absolutely no bearing on these obstacle exceptions. I put the word preferred in there to specifically make the point. The word is redundant because obviously the stance you choose to take IS your preferred stance and the run-up angle you choose to take happens to be your preferred run-up angle by definition. Your first option is to move casual relief obstacles that are on your stance or run-up if possible. Second option is to move back on the LOP. Not sure why you're having such difficulty. There's no conflict among those statements in the rules.

jconnell
Jan 14 2011, 09:27 AM
I put the word preferred in there to specifically make the point. The word is redundant because obviously the stance you choose to take IS your preferred stance and the run-up angle you choose to take happens to be your preferred run-up angle by definition
Sorry, Chuck, I have to agree with Pete that there is a difference between "preferred" stance and available stance. Personally, my "preferred" stance is the one that will allow me to make the strongest, most accurate throw on every shot. But I think we've all found ourselves at a lie in which our "preferred" stance is impractical or impossible to achieve, where we're forced to throw a forehand instead of a backhand, or something of the sort.

I've made this a point of emphasis in teaching proper/legal stance to new players for years. You as a player are not always entitled to be able to throw from a comfortable stance (or the stance with which you feel most confident of good results). The rules only entitle you to be able to take a stance. For example, if you are a stand-straight-up putter and your lie is under an low hanging obstacle, you can't take your preferred stance, you have to straddle or putt from a knee or pull off some other contortionist maneuver.

So inserting the term "preferred" into the discussion absolutely clouds the issue unnecessarily. As Pete said, the term "preferred" doesn't appear in the rule book. It shouldn't be part of this discussion.

JaronShaffer
Jan 14 2011, 10:15 AM
Rule 803.04D says "a player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course." Chuck pointed out this refers to living foliage.

Rule 803.05A says "A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle."

NOT moving an something in your stance results in less movement than moving something.
The rules REQUIRE you to take a stance that require you to NOT move it if you can.

Yet 803.05B says in part 'The player must first attempt to move the obstacle".

You show me a player taking a stance near any obstacle and whether they move the obstacle or not I can call a stance violation on them and give them a penalty throw under the new rules.

And still, no where in the rules does it say that a player is entitled to their preferred stance.

This rule change makes things worse instead of better.

I don't see the confusion, 803.05 A opens with the statement "With the exception of casual obstacles to a stance as described in 803.05 B, a player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course." They are not in opposition to one another.

Hoser
Jan 14 2011, 10:15 AM
Rule 803.01A says to play the course as you find it, unless rules allow otherwise.

Rule 803.05A, B and E lets you remove casual obstacles from your stance or runup area. Otherwise, you aren’t allowed to move anything at all except via your least-displacing stance. So you aren’t allowed to police the course: you’ll get a one-stroke penalty (no warning) each time you pick up a random discarded beer can.

Rule 801.01D-F give you a one-stroke penalty (warning first) if you litter.

So if you pick up a random discarded beer can on the course, and then you set it back down, you get a penalty stroke and a warning. And the next time you do that, you get two penalty strokes.

Hey, all you players who like to pick up trash to clean the course as you go, you’d better stop. Let “somebody else” do the clean-up “some other time.” Remember, everybody is supposed to enforce the rules! So, to avoid penalty, be sure you leave the course as messy as you found it.

bruceuk
Jan 14 2011, 10:48 AM
What we're talking about here is cleaning your lie, not taking your stance with least movement. If there's a twig 6 inches behind your marker you don't have to move it, but you might prefer to. You're not seriously arguing that under the least movement rule that I can't? The least movement rule applies to parts of the course I'm not allowed to move.

All the rule change states is that if part of that twig is also in front of my lie as well as being behind it, then I'm entitled to move it. There is nothing in the rule about the relative height of the twig, so if one inch of it is behind my lie and one inch in front of my lie it suddenly goes vertical for 6 feet, I can still move it.

cgkdisc
Jan 14 2011, 10:50 AM
Sorry, Chuck, I have to agree with Pete that there is a difference between "preferred" stance and available stance. Personally, my "preferred" stance is the one that will allow me to make the strongest, most accurate throw on every shot. But I think we've all found ourselves at a lie in which our "preferred" stance is impractical or impossible to achieve, where we're forced to throw a forehand instead of a backhand, or something of the sort.
Again, my use of preferred was to illustrate the point that players have some level of choice, not to change the rule. I might have used ideal stance if I meant the player could do anything. More precisely, it's the player's preferred stance within the options available under the rules. I agree that the player is still subject to stance restrictions as a result of any obstacles in the stance or run-up that can't be moved or are still subject to 'least movement' per the rules. I pointed that out in post #63 regarding the dead limb above the ground going across your stance which I don't believe can be moved and may restrict the player from their most desired stance.

bruceuk
Jan 14 2011, 12:01 PM
I pointed that out in post #63 regarding the dead limb above the ground going across your stance which I don't believe can be moved and may restrict the player from their most desired stance.

I'm not sure why you don't believe that is moveable? If it qualifies as a casual obstacle that can be moved under the rules, I don't why it's vertical position is relevant if it obstructs your stance or run up...

cgkdisc
Jan 14 2011, 12:35 PM
I believe the reason for the casual relief rules and how they have been interpreted over the years has to do with "safety" for foot placement on the playing surface itself, other than harmful flying insects which is a hazard above the ground that can attack you versus elevated live foliage/obstacles you can theoretically avoid with your stance and throwing motion. The RC probably needs to make this more clear perhaps in a Rules Q&A. For example, casual relief is not provided for poison plants which are mostly above the playing surface.

In essence, you are required by rule to have a supporting point on the playing surface upon release and your run-up is on the playing surface. However, any obstacle in space in theory can be avoided by contorting your run-up or stance body position for 'least movement' of any elevated obstacles.

bruceuk
Jan 14 2011, 12:49 PM
I believe the reason for the casual relief rules and how they have been interpreted over the years has to do with "safety" for foot placement on the playing surface itself, other than harmful flying insects which is a hazard above the ground that can attack you versus elevated live foliage/obstacles you can theoretically avoid with your stance and throwing motion. The RC probably needs to make this more clear perhaps in a Rules Q&A. For example, casual relief is not provided for poison plants which are mostly above the playing surface.

In essence, you are required by rule to have a supporting point on the playing surface upon release and your run-up is on the playing surface. However, any obstacle in space in theory can be avoided by contorting your run-up or stance body position for 'least movement' of any elevated obstacles.

Sorry Chuck, but that's just nonsense. What is elevated? It could be an inch off the ground, so you can't put your foot under it. Ok I could step over it, or before it, but that's true of anything on the ground. Where would it have to be elevated to exclude it? Everywhere in my stance? Just the bit of it on the line of play?

You either can move casual obstacles in your run-up and stance, or you can't; there is nothing that indicates the only bit of my stance that is eligible is the bit of it touching the ground.

cgkdisc
Jan 14 2011, 01:00 PM
I can't make a ruling on it but I suspect what I said is what the RC would say. If there are live limbs coming across your stance, you can't move them (other than 'least movement'). The casual relief rule provides exceptions for a specific reason that relates to the playing surface where you MUST place your supporting points. Otherwise, you're supposed to play your shot with least movement of obstacles. I believe limbs would have been specifically included as casual relief obstacles if the RC had intended to provide relief due to safety concerns. But it wasn't seen as necessary.

bruceuk
Jan 14 2011, 01:12 PM
I can't make a ruling on it but I suspect what I said is what the RC would say. If there are live limbs coming across your stance, you can't move them (other than 'least movement'). The casual relief rule provides exceptions for a specific reason that relates to the playing surface where you MUST place your supporting points. Otherwise, you're supposed to play your shot with least movement of obstacles. I believe limbs would have been specifically included as casual relief obstacles if the RC had intended to provide relief due to safety concerns. But it wasn't seen as necessary.

Maybe I'm not being clear here, but I'm referring specifically to objects that are eligible as casual obstacles. At no point have I been talking about live limbs! The downed log with a branch sticking out you yourself were quoting in #63 would be exactly the sort of thing that would be eligible; it's dead, it's not attached to a tree, it's debris, it's in my stance or run-up. Whether it's touching the floor or not is irrelevant.

cgkdisc
Jan 14 2011, 01:29 PM
I know exactly what you're referring to and I'm saying I don't believe the RC allows those casual obstacles to be removed unless on the ground. Consider a lie that involves standing in some live pine boughs and there's a dead branch suspended in the pine tree limbs that probably dropped down from a deciduous tree above. I may be wrong but don't think that dead branch can be moved other than as result of your throwing motion. I'm talking with an RC member later today and will ask.

heernt
Jan 14 2011, 01:31 PM
Chuck, I think I understand it now. If the casual object is above the playing surface, you can't move it. If it is on the playing surface and in your stance or run up, you can move it.

As to whether it's touching the ground or not being irrelevant, I disagree. If it is above the ground, you can't roll your ankle on it. If it's on the ground, you can, which is why you are now allowed to move it.

16670
Jan 14 2011, 01:56 PM
how is a run up described ? Lets say there is a big limb on the ground 20-30 ft behind you that doesnt really impead your run up normaly but one of the branches on this limb jut up and out and block the line you would prefer,Can you just decide to take a 20-30ft run-up this time and move this run-up obstruction?

what if the same limb is 5ft behind but 10 ft to the left or right with nothing directly behind your lie at all but the limbs are blocking your shot can you just choose to take an angled run-up and move this limb?

I see this as a slippery slope with no real defined explanation of what you can and cant move behind your lie.

also what happens if you move something in your run-up but then never run-up through the area you cleared? a violation? a penalty? what if you clear your run -up for a backhand shot then at the last second change your mind and throw a forehand?penalty?

cgkdisc
Jan 14 2011, 02:19 PM
Rule 803.05E allows the group to apply a one throw penalty if they believe a player has gone beyond what's allowed for relief. If a player has any question about whether they can move something, they can ask the group. If the player disagrees, the player can play a provisional without moving the obstacle and a provisional after moving the obstacle and let the TD decide.

wsfaplau
Jan 14 2011, 03:40 PM
Here is an example .

I am 50 ft from the basket. A long putt. I prefer to throw a Barry Schultz style putt. Straddle stance, disc very low. 12 inches in FRONT of my lie, not at all behind my lie is a dead branch on the ground with smaller branches rising up 2 feet in the air. I take my stance and while swinging my arm forward to prepare to putt I come into contact with the branches. They clearly are impacting my stance since the disc would hit it before I release the disc.

Even though the entire branch is between my lie and the basket can I remove this impediment to my stance?

803.05B appears to allow me to move this dead branch even if it is entirely in front of my lie.
Is this really the new rule?

Hoser
Jan 14 2011, 04:14 PM
Chuck, before you answer Pete, you might want to give a close read to 803.04 and 803.05 -- especially the clauses about least-displacing stance -- and think about this:

Is "stance" the position of your body just before your throwing motion begins?

Or is "stance" the position of your body at the instant of release?

cgkdisc
Jan 14 2011, 05:35 PM
"Stance" is not in the Definitions but we can derive what "stance" means from the Stance rule 803.04. Since you can only have a "stance violation" when your supporting points are in the wrong position at the wrong time, it would appear that your stance is defined by where your supporting points are on the playing surface at the time of release. So in Pete's example, the branch in front of the lie would not be in the stance and couldn't be moved since all supporting points of your stance must be in contact with the playing surface behind the marker at the time of release. That's how I read it at least.

wsfaplau
Jan 15 2011, 04:09 AM
Outstanding. At last we have some common ground.
I agree with your stance definition in post 83.
I have much less trouble with the rule if stance is defined that way.

The problem is I don't think that is how most players would define stance.
Lets look at some other sports and how stance is commonly defined.
baseball players take a wide variety of batting stances when they hit.
Football players take a 3 point stance.
Basketball players take a defensive stance to defend other players.
These common uses of stance refer to the whole body position, not just the feet.

Back to disc golf. Ask a player to define their stance for a forehand shot.
You'll get a response like this. My left foot is behind my marker, right foot slightly further from the basket. My hips are open to the target and my right arm and shoulder are back with my elbow tucked in close to my body.
To disc golfers every where, that is their stance.

So to my 50 ft putt example above a significant percent of people will say the new rule allows me to move the branch which is entirely in front of my lie because it is in my stance.And if they read this thread some will even say Chuck says I am entitled to my preferred stance and since that branch is in the way of my preferred stance I can move it.

I know the intent of the rule change was to improve safety by allowing a defined casual obstacle to be moved even if part of it extends between your lie and the hole. In my opinion the wording they chose opened the door much wider for mis-interpretation. And mis-interpretation means more people will gain advantages over people using correct interpretations of the rule. People will now feel entitled, with their feet in a legal position, to move anything they can reach and claim their stance is affected.

How to improve it? Maybe just add a definition defining stance as foot placement would do the trick. maybe make that clear in the upcoming improved Q&As.

I hope I am wrong but don't think I am.

cgkdisc
Jan 15 2011, 10:16 AM
There are several things that need to be clarified in the Rules Q&A and we're prodding the RC to get that document streamlined and updated. Once that happens, the Rules Q&A will be considered an official adjunct to the rules.

Hoser
Jan 15 2011, 08:23 PM
Pete, you’re right that disc golfers commonly think of their stance as more than what’s touching the ground. Not only that: disc golfers also commonly think that stance rules 803.04 and 803.05 govern different body parts at different times.

803.04. Stance, subsequent to teeing off

A. When the disc is released, a player must:

1. Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc; and

2. Have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and

3. Have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.
803.04A’s description of stance involves how your shoes touch the ground, and it also can involve how your legs touch vines or bushes, how your torso touches branches, how your arms touch twigs and leaves, and how your feet touch loose debris – all at the instant of release.


803.04D. A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.


So far, in this rulebook, the only description of stance is 803.04A. So 803.04D, like 803.04A, is about your stance at the instant of release. Right?


803.05. Obstacles and relief

A. With the exception of casual obstacles to a stance as described in 803.05B, a player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc.), which is considered part of the course. A player is allowed to request that other people remove themselves and/or their belongings from the player’s stance or line of play. A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player’s throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.
But then 803.05A’s last three sentences draw “stance” away from the instant of release. The shift starts subtly: “A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle.” That looks like 803.04D. And it looks like “the stance” refers to the instant of release, like in 803.04.

But then the next sentence – “Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion” – strongly implies that your stance is your body’s position just before you make your throwing motion, rather than at the instant of release. Otherwise why would 803.05A say that once you’re in that stance, you may not move stuff in order to make room to throw?

The third sentence further confuses the time issue. “It is legal for a player’s throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.” At the instant of release, you’re allowed to displace obstacles more than your “legal” stance did.

So disc golfers see stance two ways: how your feet touch ground at the instant of release; and how your body is positioned in relation to obstacles just before you begin your throwing motion.

Here’s that dual view in action:


Bubba throws into shule. Bubba and Bob go to look at the lie. Bubba maneuvers into the shule, marks his lie, takes a “ready” stance, and says to Bob, “Does that look okay?” (Meaning, “Am I in the least-displacing stance right now?”) Bob says, “Yeah.” At this point, Bubba and Bob are satisfied that Bubba is in a legal stance. Then if Bubba’s throwing motion displaces more stuff at the instant of release, 803.05A’s “incidental movement” clause forgives him.

Similarly, in Pete’s 50’ putt scenario, suppose Pete’s arm, at the instant of release, is touching the branch in front of his lie. Is this a stance foul (803.04A)? Or is it incidental movement after a legal stance is taken (803.05A)?


All of this confusion can be cleared up by writing a new stance-and-obstacle rule that ties all your body-position requirements – vis-à-vis your lie and obstacles – to a single instant in time. The game of SnapChing does it this way:


SnapChing Rule 3. In these rules, “throw” = release (not drop) a WSL-approved disc into air by hand during your play, and at that instant:

• Touch your lie and nothing closer to the target.

• Don’t touch out-of-bounds.

• Position your body to least displace things attached to the ground except grass and weeds; and already try to replace every other such thing you’ve moved.


Rule 3’s third “bullet” creates a major difference between SnapChing and PDGA disc golf. The “position your body” clause is SnapChing’s only governance of moving stuff on the course. (Except if you break stuff.) So SnapChingers are free to remove anything that’s not attached to the ground, anytime, anywhere, regardless of when it got there or how it may affect stance, run-up, throwing motion, follow-through, flight path or strategy. SnapChingers play the course as the designers created it: without capricious stuff in the way. You always are allowed to clean up the playing area and maintain and restore the course design. By contrast, PDGA rules insist that you play the course as you find it (803.01A) and not move any obstacle – attached to the ground or not – unless the casual-relief rule lets you (803.05A-B). During play, disc golfers generally risk a one-stroke penalty (no warning) for cleaning up debris or removing capricious obstacles to restore the course design.

Disc golf can be played either way: play the course as you find it; or play the course as it was designed. If you play it as it was designed:


The course stays cleaner.

The game is more fun.

Each hole’s strategy is as the designers intended.

Rulewriters don’t have to write, or answer Q&As about, complicated arbitrary rules about moving stuff.

Hoser
Jan 15 2011, 08:29 PM
Chuck, you and a lot of others are hoping that when the Q&As gain “rule” status, they’ll clear up a lot of confusion about how to play.

But will they? The RC will refine the Q&As via the same thought process and committee deliberation that has produced the rulebook that needs the Q&As. Unless the RC refines the Q&As better than they’ve written the rulebook, the Q&As may open more cans of worms than the rules themselves.

It might be best for the Q&As to just pose scenarios, give bare-bones answers (with rule citations), and not explain anything about how the RC interprets the rules to get the rulings. Let the rulings do the talking. Let players look at the Q&As and the cited rules, and figure out logically how to apply them to scenarios that come up on the field of play.

Still, that doesn’t cure the basic flaw: the disc golf rulebook isn’t clear enough to stand on its own, without interpretation and Q&As.

cgkdisc
Jan 15 2011, 09:03 PM
The Rules Q&As will be vastly shorter than they are now with no explantory storytelling the way they are done now. Ideally, the next rules update will incorporate all Q&As so there are few or none when the next book is published.

august
Jan 15 2011, 10:44 PM
The Rules Q&As will be vastly shorter than they are now with no explantory storytelling the way they are done now. Ideally, the next rules update will incorporate all Q&As so there are few or none when the next book is published.

That would be ideal. The Q & A should not be case law.

cgkdisc
Jan 15 2011, 10:54 PM
The proposed plan once this process is underway is to have no Q&As after each main rulebook update and only add Rules Q&As as needed in-between rules updates.

krupicka
Jan 16 2011, 09:33 AM
But based on the discussion of the rules that are barely out of the gate, it sounds like a number of Q&As need to be written. This might have been avoided if the proposed rule changes had been tossed around in public here on these forums prior to enactment so that they could have been cleaned up first.

jconnell
Jan 16 2011, 09:46 AM
That would be ideal. The Q & A should not be case law.
While I agree that the clearer the rules are originally written, the better, I don't think the goal should be to have no Q&A either. Most sports have their rulebook, and then an additional document or documents explaining interpretations of the rules in the book. For example (oh noes, it's a ball golf reference), the USGA has its The Rules of Golf, as well as the companion Decisions on The Rules of Golf. Decisions contains over 1000 Q&A style interpretations of the rules of golf.

Not that disc golf should or will ever get to the point where the rules require over 1000 entries in a Q&A interpretation document, but I think the Q&A is always going to be necessary to universalize application of the rules of play. In short, the Q&A should be considered case law once it is streamlined and officially published (meaning beyond a page on this website).

cgkdisc
Jan 16 2011, 10:21 AM
But based on the discussion of the rules that are barely out of the gate, it sounds like a number of Q&As need to be written. This might have been avoided if the proposed rule changes had been tossed around in public here on these forums prior to enactment so that they could have been cleaned up first.

There were new Q&As that were required even before the new rules update was completed. The one on whether stance is strictly based on supporting points on the ground or includes body position above the ground was probably needed for a while.

DShelton
Jan 16 2011, 04:27 PM
[COLOR="Red"]SnapChing Rule 3. In these rules, “throw” = release (not drop) a WSL-approved disc into air by hand during your play, and [I]at that instant:

You do know you are not helping the cause of Snapching here. Instead it hurts it. Every time I see something like this in a discussion of PDGA rules, it only makes me hate the game of Snapching that much more.

august
Jan 17 2011, 08:51 AM
While I agree that the clearer the rules are originally written, the better, I don't think the goal should be to have no Q&A either. Most sports have their rulebook, and then an additional document or documents explaining interpretations of the rules in the book. For example (oh noes, it's a ball golf reference), the USGA has its The Rules of Golf, as well as the companion Decisions on The Rules of Golf. Decisions contains over 1000 Q&A style interpretations of the rules of golf.

Not that disc golf should or will ever get to the point where the rules require over 1000 entries in a Q&A interpretation document, but I think the Q&A is always going to be necessary to universalize application of the rules of play. In short, the Q&A should be considered case law once it is streamlined and officially published (meaning beyond a page on this website).

If the Q & A is going to be codified as case law, then it should be reviewed for accuracy and validity prior to publication. Historically, they have not always been correct.

jconnell
Jan 17 2011, 09:10 AM
If the Q & A is going to be codified as case law, then it should be reviewed for accuracy and validity prior to publication. Historically, they have not always been correct.
Thus the caveat that they aren't case law until they are streamlined and officially published. Chuck's already mentioned numerous times that the RC is working on reviewing and editing the existing Q&As down to the essentials before they are considered official.

As they exist now, I agree that they're not to be viewed as case law. But that certainly doesn't mean they can't ever be that.

chappyfade
Jan 17 2011, 11:17 AM
The proposed plan once this process is underway is to have no Q&As after each main rulebook update and only add Rules Q&As as needed in-between rules updates.

With all due respect, we need Q&A's to explain certain situations. While I agree that ideally the rule book would provide such clarity that everyone could only interpret the rules one way, the fact is that goal is impossible to achieve. You may need a Q&A to explain a certain rule. I think the above several posts demonstrate the need for a Q&A on that topic alone.

Laws, at least American laws, are based partially on morality and ethics, but there is a sense of legal reality. Basically, the laws are enforced a certain way due to precedent or practicality. In otherwords, not all people are going to interpret the law the same way, and we need a guideline in certain instances where rules can be interpreted more than one way. We are always going to need Q&A's, and ESPECIALLY with the printing of new rules. New rules spawn new interpretations.

chappyfade
Jan 17 2011, 11:22 AM
If the Q & A is going to be codified as case law, then it should be reviewed for accuracy and validity prior to publication. Historically, they have not always been correct.

The RC always check the validity of the Q&A with every rules printing. My first job as a new member of the RC in 2002 was to update the Q&A after the 2002 rules update. Historically, the Q&A HAVE been correct. Sometimes, the RC will update the Q&A for other reasons (note the Q&A about placing a towel on the ground to kneel on), but the Q&A is always updated when a rules update is passed. I'm sure the RC has processed such an update, or is in the process of doing so.

Chap

cgkdisc
Jan 17 2011, 11:33 AM
I think what we may see is the Rules Q&A being strictly rules clarifications that are as official as the rules. Then there could be something new which includes the storytelling explanations and examples that used to be in the Rules Q&As that are helpful for understanding how the rules have been interpreted by officials but are not considered "official."

jamidanger
Jan 17 2011, 12:27 PM
I appreciate the rules book and competition manual as the format for the rules of play, and would like to see a chapter in there for rulings regarding specific instances to help expedite play. Sure the rule book would get progressively longer, but it would be handy with regards to educating anyone who reads it.

august
Jan 17 2011, 06:56 PM
The RC always check the validity of the Q&A with every rules printing. My first job as a new member of the RC in 2002 was to update the Q&A after the 2002 rules update. Historically, the Q&A HAVE been correct. Sometimes, the RC will update the Q&A for other reasons (note the Q&A about placing a towel on the ground to kneel on), but the Q&A is always updated when a rules update is passed. I'm sure the RC has processed such an update, or is in the process of doing so.

Chap

With all due respect, the RC is not infallible. I probably should have clarified that Q & A clarifications should be reviewed by an entity outside of the RC for accuracy prior to publication. I recall something recently published that mentioned "alternative line of play" (or something along those lines - forgive me for not remembering the exact wording) despite there being no provision for such a concept in the rules.

As far as American laws being based on morality and ethics, please don't get me started. Ever heard of the Jim Crow Laws? The literacy test for voting? I have worked amongst lawyers and legislators for most of my professional life and I am well aware of the game they play. I know that the RC has no such social or political agenda, but it would be a good idea to have the Q & A responses reviewed by an independent body for accuracy prior to publication to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ALL is above board.

I sincerely thank you for your service to the PDGA through volunteering to serve on the RC.

Hoser
Jan 18 2011, 10:46 AM
DShelton, re your Post #94:

So as not to drift on this thread, please see our reply on the “Open Letter to the PDGA” thread (Post #239).


Mike & Matt

ibgollie
Jan 24 2011, 05:04 PM
"Stance" is not in the Definitions

My question is why not?? We have rules that are dependent on when a stance is taken so it should be defined.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 05:50 PM
Your stance isn't always just one type of position that can be defined universally. It's situational based on what you're doing which is why the one rule is titled: Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off. Your stance on the tee has different conditions. Now it may be that additional explanation is required on what it means for those situations. But it might be difficult to come up with a comprehensive definition for the Definitions section.

ibgollie
Jan 27 2011, 05:10 PM
Your stance isn't always just one type of position that can be defined universally. It's situational based on what you're doing which is why the one rule is titled: Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off. Your stance on the tee has different conditions. Now it may be that additional explanation is required on what it means for those situations. But it might be difficult to come up with a comprehensive definition for the Definitions section.

I agree, but we have rules that refer to the "stance" and as it takes place in time:

803.05.A: ...A player must choose a stance...Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion...

803.05.B: Casual Obstacles to a Stance

So when have I taken a stance? At the point of release? Just before that? As soon as I step behind my marker?

In golf they use Addressing the Ball in a similar manner to our "taken a stance" and it is specific:

Addressing the Ball
A player has "addressed the ball" when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance.

Stance
Taking the "stance" consists in a player placing his feet in position for and preparatory to making a stroke.

In our case it's more difficult due to the situations where run-ups are allowed. Due to that complication a "stance" should be defined as the moment immediately prior to the release. There would be 2 situations, on the tee box and subsequent to teeing off.

The 2 definitions should be the same except the "Subsequent to Teeing Off" includes the provisions of being behind you the marked disc.

cgkdisc
Jan 27 2011, 05:43 PM
The RC has simply chosen to define stance relative to each situation so it's there along with the other relevant parts of the action being taken rather than put both stance definitions in the Definitions.

Hoser
Jan 28 2011, 12:39 AM
Chuck, when you say “stance relative to each situation,” are we right to assume that you mean these four stance situations?


STANCE ON A TEE. At the instant of release, touch the tee and nowhere else. After release, it’s okay to touch outside the tee.

STANCE IN THE FAIRWAY #1. At the instant of release, touch your lie (LOP within 30cm behind marker), and touch nowhere closer to the target, and don’t touch OB. After release, it’s okay to touch forward of the lie.

STANCE IN THE FAIRWAY #2. Just before your throwing motion starts, be in the stance that least displaces non-casual obstacles. Then it’s okay for your throwing motion to “incidentally” displace such obstacles.

STANCE ON A PUTT (rear of marker is within 10M of target pole). Same as Fairway Stance #1 & #2, except after release you’re not allowed to touch forward of the lie until you demonstrate full control of balance.


Another question. Suppose you are throwing a fairway shot or a putt from within shule. At the instant of release, as long as your feet are in a legal position, is it okay for your throwing arm or hand to be touching live branches or leaves that are slightly ahead of your marker?

cgkdisc
Jan 28 2011, 02:51 AM
As I understand it, your initial throwing position should do the least amount of bending live vegetation. But during the throwing motion, including before release of the disc, you may disrupt live vegetation as needed for that motion, some of which might be in front of the marker.

Hoser
Jan 28 2011, 12:51 PM
Chuck, you said:


During the throwing motion, including before release of the disc, you may disrupt live vegetation as needed for that motion, some of which might be in front of the marker.

My question may not have been clear enough.

I’m not asking about disrupting stuff ahead of the marker. I’m asking: Is it okay, at the instant of release, for your arm/hand to be touching live vegetation at a point of contact that’s ahead of your marker?

If so, how do you resolve the conflict with 803.04A, which prohibits touching ahead of the lie at the instant of release?

This isn’t an arcane question. Anytime you are throwing out of shule, either on the unfairway or within 10M of the target, you’ll want to extend your hand as far through the clutter as the rules allow, before you release your flight. So it makes a big difference whether the rules do or don’t allow your hand to touch stuff forward of the marker at the instant of release.


* * *


As I understand it, your initial throwing position should do the least amount of bending live vegetation.

803.04A describes stance as your body’s position vis-à-vis your lie at the instant of release.

You are suggesting – and 803.05A implies – that stance is your body’s position vis-à-vis obstacles at some point in time before your throwing motion starts.

Are you saying that stance-subsequent-to-teeing-off is two different body-position requirements that apply to two different moments in time? If so, then exactly when does the earlier moment occur – i.e., exactly when must you least displace obstacles?

Here’s what I’m getting at:

On a tee – where, presumably, no obstacles exist for you to displace – there is just one stance that matters: the position of your body vis-à-vis the tee at the instant of release. It’s irrelevant where any part of your body may be before that instant or after that instant.

But on any later shot where obstacles exist for you to displace, the rules seem to say that there are two stances that matter: the position of your body vis-à-vis obstacles at one point in time (803.05A); and the position of your body vis-à-vis your lie at another point in time (803.04A).

Furthermore 803.05A allows “incidental movement” of obstacles between those two moments in time and even at the instant of release.

Chuck, is this an accurate picture of how the PDGA wants disc golf to be played?

Also: what are the limits of “incidental movement” of obstacles? (Please cite source.)

cgkdisc
Jan 28 2011, 01:09 PM
If so, how do you resolve the conflict with 803.04A, which prohibits touching ahead of the lie at the instant of release?
I don't believe it says that. It says no supporting point contact on or in front of rear edge of marker which usually is not your hands or body. There's nothing against touching vegetation in front at time of release with any non-supporting parts of your body. If you grab a trunk in front of your lie, that hand becomes a supporting point and would not be allowed. If your hand is brushing against tree branches in front, essentially with incidental contact, no problem.

cgkdisc
Jan 28 2011, 01:31 PM
Are you saying that stance-subsequent-to-teeing-off is two different body-position requirements that apply to two different moments in time? If so, then exactly when does the earlier moment occur – i.e., exactly when must you least displace obstacles?
I'm not sure really and it's been bugging me over the years. Let's say you have two lies - Lie X partway inside and under the edge of low pine tree branches and Lie Y on nicely mowed grass that's 5 feet in front of those pine branches. As I understand it, I could run up from 6 feet back up to lie X and disrupt the pine branches any way I needed to with my throwing motion. However for Lie Y, I couldn't go back 6 feet to start my run-up because I would be bending those same pine tree branches when I could start from 4 feet back and not be touching/bending them at all.

Hoser
Jan 28 2011, 03:36 PM
Chuck, re Post #110.

You're right. I misread Rule 803.04A. It does refer only to supporting points, not to parts of the body that touch stuff in ways that don't support the thrower. Sorry for that misread. Arrggghhh.

:o

veganray
Jan 28 2011, 04:05 PM
So if one's lie was halfway down a long, relatively steep slope, could one not stand at the bottom of the slope, reach up lightly & touch the ground directly behind his lie with their non-throwing hand, and legally throw? (Assume the placement of the feet at the bottom of the slope make each of them >30cm from the lie.)

By your figgerin', the hand would not be a "supporting point", and 803.04A(1) requires "When the disc is released, a player must have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc."

veganray
Jan 28 2011, 04:10 PM
How 'bout stance on a long "reach-out" trouble shot, where all of the player's weight is on the "reaching" foot and the teeny, tiny tippy-toe actually behind the lie bears no weight. Does that count as a legal stance, or is that too disallowed under this definition of a "supporting point"?

Hoser
Jan 28 2011, 04:32 PM
Chuck, re Post #111:


A way to resolve that situation would be to revise 803.05A to tie all stance requirements to the instant of release. That way, your body would have to be least displacing obstacles at the instant of release. Under this concept of stance, no subrules would be needed to govern “incidental movement” or prohibit you from holding branches aside to facilitate your throw.

This would affect your X/Y scenario this way: you wouldn’t be allowed to do that run-up-and-thrash delivery in Situation X, but you could make your full run-up in Situation Y (as long as you don’t violate the damage rule during your run-up).

Furthermore, the stance rule might also be more sensibly written to prohibit you touching, rather than placing supporting points, ahead of the rear of your marker. That way, if you’re throwing out of shule, you’d have to make sure that at the instant of release you aren’t touching anything on the course that’s ahead of the rear or your marker. This concept of stance also would settle Vegan Ray’s concerns in Posts #113 and 114.

Might this singular stance concept make shots tougher after you land in shule? Yes. And the challenge of playing out of shule would have an interesting impact on your strategy about risking flying into it.

There’s one further way to simplify the stance rule: make stance the same on tees and putts as in the fairway. In other words, allow you to touch beside or behind the tee (as well as on it), and don’t prohibit falling putts.

Funny thing: there’s another set of disc golf rules (with a name that we won’t mention on this thread) that uses that singular definition of stance everywhere on the course. It works.

chappyfade
Jan 28 2011, 11:11 PM
With all due respect, the RC is not infallible. I probably should have clarified that Q & A clarifications should be reviewed by an entity outside of the RC for accuracy prior to publication. I recall something recently published that mentioned "alternative line of play" (or something along those lines - forgive me for not remembering the exact wording) despite there being no provision for such a concept in the rules.

As far as American laws being based on morality and ethics, please don't get me started. Ever heard of the Jim Crow Laws? The literacy test for voting? I have worked amongst lawyers and legislators for most of my professional life and I am well aware of the game they play. I know that the RC has no such social or political agenda, but it would be a good idea to have the Q & A responses reviewed by an independent body for accuracy prior to publication to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ALL is above board.

I sincerely thank you for your service to the PDGA through volunteering to serve on the RC.

Morality and ethics change over the years. Jim Crow laws, despite being abhorrent to me and you, were perfectly acceptable years ago to many people. Right or wrong, that's the truth.

As far as the independent body, the BoD is always the oversight for the RC, so there you have your independent body. The BoD is actually in charge of changing the rules, while the RC is an advisory committee, albeit a very important one.

Chap

bruce_brakel
Jan 29 2011, 03:29 AM
So if one's lie was halfway down a long, relatively steep slope, could one not stand at the bottom of the slope, reach up lightly & touch the ground directly behind his lie with their non-throwing hand, and legally throw? (Assume the placement of the feet at the bottom of the slope make each of them >30cm from the lie.)

By your figgerin', the hand would not be a "supporting point", and 803.04A(1) requires "When the disc is released, a player must have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc."

I've done that more than once in tournaments over the years, when my disc has come to rest stuck in the mud of a steep muddy embankment. It seemed more in keeping with the spirit of the rules than digging footholds into the side of the bank, like I've seen other players do.

Hoser
Jan 29 2011, 01:13 PM
Chap, from your experience being on (and now off) the RC, how would you describe the relationship of the BOD and the RC to each other?

veganray
Jan 31 2011, 10:39 AM
I've done that more than once in tournaments over the years, when my disc has come to rest stuck in the mud of a steep muddy embankment. It seemed more in keeping with the spirit of the rules than digging footholds into the side of the bank, like I've seen other players do.

My point exactly. I've done it more than a few times, as well. But with the definition of "supporting point" being bandied about by the elephant in the room to attempt to justify his desire to touch stuff ahead of his lie when throwing, it would obviously be disallowed. I'm merely trying to illuminate the unaccounted-for side effects of situationally defining rules to one's liking.

cgkdisc
Jan 31 2011, 10:51 AM
When did I say your non-throwing hand couldn't be the supporting point behind your lie? Your embankment scenario is obviously allowed. If an acrobat could actually support themself on one hand behind their lie and throw with the other hand, their legs or feet could be brushing branches in front of their lie before release.

veganray
Jan 31 2011, 12:37 PM
The Kennedy Paradox:
1) A hand lightly brushing something behind one's lie at the moment of release = a supporting point
2) A hand lightly brushing something in front of one's lie at the moment of release = not a supporting point

:confused:

cgkdisc
Jan 31 2011, 01:02 PM
Any obstacle brushed in front of or behind the lie, not on the playing surface, is not a supporting point. Where did I state otherwise? The only supporting points not on the playing surface occur when the player grabs a stationary vertical obstacle like a tree trunk either in front of or behind the lie. Behind is allowed, in front is not allowed.

veganray
Jan 31 2011, 01:19 PM
So if one's lie was halfway down a long, relatively steep slope, could one not stand at the bottom of the slope, reach up lightly & touch the ground directly behind his lie with their non-throwing hand, and legally throw? (Assume the placement of the feet at the bottom of the slope make each of them >30cm from the lie.)

803.03A(1):
When the disc is released, a player must have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc

Your embankment scenario is obviously allowed.

Therefore: lightly touching = supporting point (using Kennedy definition)

During the throwing motion, including before release of the disc, you may disrupt live vegetation as needed for that motion, some of which might be in front of the marker.

803.04A(2):
When the disc is released, a player must have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc

Therefore: lightly touching <> supporting point (using Kennedy definition)

cgkdisc
Jan 31 2011, 01:42 PM
Your hand lightly touching the embankment behind the lie is touching the playing surface thus making it a supporting point. Whereas branches above the playing surface in front of or behind the lie can be lightly brushed during release and would not be considered supporting points. You seem to be creating a controversy where there is none.

veganray
Jan 31 2011, 01:56 PM
branches above the playing surface in front of or behind the lie can be lightly brushed during release and would not be considered supporting points

Wrong. Read 803.04A(2) and 800's definition of "supporting point" carefully:
When the disc is released, a player must have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc

Supporting Point: Any part of a player's body that is in contact with the playing surface or some other object capable of providing support, at the time of release.
(emphasis added)

Therefore, any object capable of providing support (not actually providing support) and closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc must not be in contact with the thrower at the time of release. Since all branches are capable of providing support (just ask the leaves supported by them), your argument that casually brushing them at the time of release is legal is invalid.

cgkdisc
Jan 31 2011, 02:02 PM
Clever delayed editing. The rules do not prevent contact with obstacles above the playing surface, just least contact as needed for stance and also they may be contacted as part of the follow thru. The only contact not allowed is the playing surface in front of the lie or above the playing surface on something the player is holding or bracing on for support such as a tree trunk or fence. Player cannot hold any foliage in front of the lie but can have incidental contact with foliage. Example might be a player has to take a stance in pine branches. They are allowed incidental contact with the needles and branches as they move their arm to line up their shot.

veganray
Jan 31 2011, 02:21 PM
So you're admitting you're wrong & conceding?!?!?! Call the freakin' newspaper; I expected at least an attempt to deflect the debate into a random, unrelated direction or a claim that you possess secret knowledge bestowed upon you by the justified ancients of the RC that supersedes the rules foisted upon the mere rabble of the membership.

Hoser
Jan 31 2011, 02:25 PM
The RC can solve this whole convoluted argument by revising the stance rules to replace “supporting point” with “touch.” Here’s how that would look:


803.04A. When the disc is released, a player must:

(1) Touch the playing surface on the line of play and within 30cm directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.04E); and

(2) Touch nothing closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and

(3) Don’t touch out-of-bounds.


803.04C. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to touch anything closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation.


803.02A. Play shall begin on each hole with the player throwing from the teeing area. When the disc is released, the player must touch the teeing area and nowhere else. If a tee pad is provided, the pad is the teeing area. If no tee pad is provided, the teeing area is an area encompassed by a front line and two lines perpendicular to and extending back three meters from each end of the front line.

803.02B. Touching outside the teeing area at the time of release constitutes a stance violation and shall be handled in accordance with sections 803.04F, G and H.


Delete “supporting point” from the glossary.

veganray
Jan 31 2011, 02:31 PM
The RC can solve this whole convoluted argument by revising the stance rules to replace “supporting point” with “touch.”

Delete “supporting point” from the glossary.[/INDENT]
You are correct, sir, and I strongly agree with your proposed remedy.

cgkdisc
Jan 31 2011, 02:45 PM
Not possible for 803.04(2). You might as well shut down play from high grass and foliage everywhere. There are literally thousands of throws that would be faults under that proposed rule change or couldn't be played and require "SnapChing" rethrows.

veganray
Jan 31 2011, 02:58 PM
If you read the ambiguous modifier "closer to" in 803.04A(2) to refer to "touch" and not "nothing", everything is cool. As long as the point of touch is behind the lie, fine; point of touch in front of the lie, not fine.

If you can't accomplish a throw without establishing a point of touch (with anything) in front of your lie, you have several options:
1) contort your body differently to allow for a legal throw
2) move back up to 30cm on the LOP
3) take an unplayable lie (or whatever it is called now) and its concomitant penalty

cgkdisc
Jan 31 2011, 03:03 PM
Still not viable. Try it and see. I don't believe you can go thru a round on a course lush with foliage and not touch foliage in front of your lie on some shots at the point of release. Your knee will likely be in front of your lie at the time of release and touching high grass. Your arm will sometimes be touching leaves and branches. Hard to try in Minnesota this time of the year.

veganray
Jan 31 2011, 03:11 PM
Still not viable. Try it and see. I don't believe you can go thru a round on a course lush with foliage and not touch foliage in front of your lie on some shots. Hard to try in Minnesota this time of the year.

One can if one wants to. Adjust stance, move back from marker up to 30cm, release earlier, etc. Just because something is inconvenient doesn't mean it is impossible, and just because it is easier to ignore rules that cause inconvenience than to follow them doesn't mean it is right.

And attempting to unilaterally rewrite the plainly-stated definitions & rules governing our sport to accommodate one's distaste for inconvenience is just plain felonious.

Hoser
Jan 31 2011, 05:37 PM
I agree with Vegan Ray (and don’t think we’re not both enjoying the irony of that!): at the instant of release, it always is possible to be in the least-displacing stance, correctly touching your lie and not touching anything (on or above ground) that’s forward of the rear of the marker. You may not be able to generate much power of arm or leg in your throw, or get much of a wind-up, or extend your arm forward as you’d like to. But you can make a throw. If the throw doesn’t go far – well, that’s a reminder not to throw into that shule next time.

Chuck, the forward-reaching throwing motion that you are assuming is your right as a disc golfer – and which Rule 803.05A implies may be legal – is a holdover from a much older PDGA relief rule. The 1983 PDGA rulebook gave relief to the nearest “playable lie” if your disc was lost, OB, 2M above ground, or in a lie that you declared unplayable. 1983 Rule 4.3 defined “playable lie” as:

“A place where the player has room to make a full and unencumbered throw toward the hole, with no hazards to the flight of the disc closer than 3 meters to the player, and no closer to the hole with both feet inbounds."
It was not unusual for “playable lie” relief to bring you completely out of jail.

“Playable lie” relief continued in the 1986 rulebook – where it was renamed “favorable lie” for reasons known only to the anointed – and again in the 1988 rulebook. (There were a few subtle revisions, reminiscent of the “line of play” v. “line of flight” fiasco that recently brightened up the Rules School).

In the 1988 rulebook, the “favorable lie” definition – accompanied by an illustration that looked like an ice cream cone riding a unicycle, with arrows pointing in four directions – swelled to 200 words, which is half as long as an entire other disc golf rulebook that shall be nameless in this post. “Favorable lie” was so confusing that the RC gave up and removed the whole concept from the 1990 rulebook. O, there was a gnashing of teeth among the serfs! Disc golfers yearned for freedom to always get a clean stance, a free swing, and room for their discs to fly. That yearning survives today in Rule 803.05A, which lets you release your disc from a stance that is not least-displacing, and lets you thrash your arm through leaves or branches that are forward of your marker as you let fly.

Chuck, I vividly recall how disappointed disc golfers of the 1980s were to lose the freedom of “playable/favorable lie.” And you are going to be disappointed if you lose the freedom that you believe 803.05A gives you. But if disc golf is to have a clear and sensible stance rule, it likely will involve the “touch” element that Vegan Ray and I suggest. When that happens, you’ll need to adjust to a more difficult throw out of shule. But you’ll get over it: you’re a stalwart lad.

cgkdisc
Jan 31 2011, 06:00 PM
So far, you're the only ones who see it as a problem. The bias appears to be toward writing rules that allow players to reasonably make their best effort to play the majority of lies. I think players support that concept indirectly because you don't see the absolute "least movement" rule called very often, even though most of the time lying on the ground would likely produce the absolute least movement when your lie is in brushy areas. In only very limited cases, are players forced to take relief with penalty. I suspect the "supporting points" for your approach may not be "grasped" nor will those who could make changes "touch" any parts of these rules. But it's not your "fault" for trying.

august
Feb 01 2011, 09:30 AM
Morality and ethics change over the years. Jim Crow laws, despite being abhorrent to me and you, were perfectly acceptable years ago to many people. Right or wrong, that's the truth.

As far as the independent body, the BoD is always the oversight for the RC, so there you have your independent body. The BoD is actually in charge of changing the rules, while the RC is an advisory committee, albeit a very important one.

Chap

Thanks for the reply. My point earlier was that morality and ethics have little to do with enacting laws. It's a matter of personal agendas of small interest groups or individuals. Enough of that sidebar though. My bad.

Though I feel that the BoD should certainly review rules changes and interpretations, I don't think the BoD is far enough removed from the situation to be the independent review body in this case. To me, that's like having the police perform an internal review on whether a shooting was justified or not. The appearance is self-serving. The review should be performed by the equivalent of a citizen panel, made up of PDGA members and TD's.

wsfaplau
Feb 15 2011, 02:30 PM
Here is an example .

I am 50 ft from the basket. A long putt. I prefer to throw a Barry Schultz style putt. Straddle stance, disc very low. 12 inches in FRONT of my lie, not at all behind my lie is a dead branch on the ground with smaller branches rising up 2 feet in the air. I take my stance and while swinging my arm forward to prepare to putt I come into contact with the branches. They clearly are impacting my stance since the disc would hit it before I release the disc.

Even though the entire branch is between my lie and the basket can I remove this impediment to my stance?

803.05B appears to allow me to move this dead branch even if it is entirely in front of my lie.
Is this really the new rule?

I asked this in post 81. I finally got around to asking the RC, and they just got back to me.
I don't like posting someone else's email with out permission, and I didn't ask, so I'll use my words to explain their considered response.

The response said they don't consider the branch an obstacle to the stance but an obstacle to the throwing motion. So, no, the branch can't be moved.

The response went on to say if you are taking a straddle to either side you can move sticks, etc, from where both/either feet are placed.

I also asked if you are entitled to a stance, or your preferred stance. The response said I could take whatever stance I like so long as I don't move the branch since it is front of my lie and therefore not in my stance.

The response concluded saying saying stance should probably be added to the definitions section but the conception of stance is the area where your supporting points contact the playing surface.

So that is what the RC thinks. I hope it is clarified like this in the new Q&As. I would also like to see this question added to the officials exam which will generate a more consistent application of this rule in my opinion.

tengstrom
Mar 12 2011, 01:10 PM
I think Chuck Kennedy is right about the supporting points debate here. Most players, anywhere I go, understand the rules for stances and what is considered in front and behind and least movement. They might not always say it in the same terms as the rulebook states, but they know it. And at times when a player is about to violate the rule, they (not rules-reader like me; I mean casual players) often say kindly "I don't think you can do that, man" or something like that. The rules say in words what most players already practice, and thus they ought not to be lightly altered because a small group cannot discern the intent.

wsfaplau
Mar 14 2011, 06:03 PM
Most players, anywhere I go, understand the rules for stances and what is considered in front and behind and least movement.

The rules say in words what most players already practice, and thus they ought not to be lightly altered because a small group cannot discern the intent.

While "most" people having a similar understanding of the rules works great for casual play you can't really believe that is OK for PDGA tourney play can you?

frisbeeguy
Mar 15 2011, 10:24 AM
I thought we were supposed to receive a new rules book when renewing our association fees this year? If so - could I have one sent to me? (my email request to the PDGA was not replied to)

It would be nice to have a look at it before the the upcoming "NT" & "Major" that begins in a couple weeks in TX.

It would make learning the new changes easier then attempting to decipher this thread.

Thanks to those that are doing so much work organizing and running the tournaments.

cgkdisc
Mar 15 2011, 10:28 AM
You should have gotten a new rulebook in your renewal pack. Call 1-888-840-7342 if it wasn't in there.

jconnell
Mar 15 2011, 10:29 AM
I thought we were supposed to receive a new rules book when renewing our association fees this year? If so - could I have one sent to me? (my email request to the PDGA was not replied to)

It would be nice to have a look at it before the the upcoming "NT" & "Major" that begins in a couple weeks in TX.

It would make learning the new changes easier then attempting to decipher this thread.

Thanks to those that are doing so much work organizing and running the tournaments.
I received mine when I renewed in January. Don't know what the story is with yours, though.

In the meantime, you always have the option of reading the rules right here on the website (PDGA Rules of Play (http://www.pdga.com/rules)) without the need to decipher this thread.

ratskrad
Mar 18 2011, 02:11 AM
Don't mean to swing this away from the whole stance/least movement discussion, but I would like to hear some opinions on what I think are entirely contradictory mandatory rules.

803.12a says "a disc must pass the correct side of the mandatory before the hole is completed"

803.12c says "a disc that has missed a mandatory results in a one-throw penalty and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone". This drop zone can be designated or not. If it's not designated, this same rule explains where the drop zone is.

803.12e says "a throw that misses a mandatory shall be penalized and the lie marked according to the mandatory rule (803.12). It will not be further penalized for any other reason"

the contradictory part . . .

801.04(2) says "if the misplay is discovered after a player's throw has passed beyond the mandatory on the wrong side, and a subsequent throw has been made, the player shall finish the hole without playing from the drop zone, and receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay"


Doesn't 801.04(2) require exactly the opposite of 803.12 a, c, & e?

The way I interpret 803.12 is that no matter how many throws are made after missing the mandatory, and whether or not the disc has found it's way into the basket, the hole has not been completed until the disc has passed the correct side of the mandatory . . . the "next shot" is the one made from the drop zone once the error has been realized, and any shots in between are practice shots which are not penalized because the penalty is one stroke and the player will not be penalized for any other reason.

thanks in advance for your opinions.

jconnell
Mar 18 2011, 09:52 AM
Don't mean to swing this away from the whole stance/least movement discussion, but I would like to hear some opinions on what I think are entirely contradictory mandatory rules.

803.12a says "a disc must pass the correct side of the mandatory before the hole is completed"

803.12c says "a disc that has missed a mandatory results in a one-throw penalty and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone". This drop zone can be designated or not. If it's not designated, this same rule explains where the drop zone is.

803.12e says "a throw that misses a mandatory shall be penalized and the lie marked according to the mandatory rule (803.12). It will not be further penalized for any other reason"

the contradictory part . . .

801.04(2) says "if the misplay is discovered after a player's throw has passed beyond the mandatory on the wrong side, and a subsequent throw has been made, the player shall finish the hole without playing from the drop zone, and receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay"


Doesn't 801.04(2) require exactly the opposite of 803.12 a, c, & e?

The way I interpret 803.12 is that no matter how many throws are made after missing the mandatory, and whether or not the disc has found it's way into the basket, the hole has not been completed until the disc has passed the correct side of the mandatory . . . the "next shot" is the one made from the drop zone once the error has been realized, and any shots in between are practice shots which are not penalized because the penalty is one stroke and the player will not be penalized for any other reason.

thanks in advance for your opinions.
But you leave out the first half of 801.04 B (2):
"Failing to attempt to navigate a mandatory route. If the misplay is discovered after a player's throw has passed beyond the mandatory on the wrong side, but before a subsequent throw has been made, the player shall be assessed a one-throw penalty and play from the drop zone as stipulated in 803.12 B."

801.04 addresses failing to play the stipulated course in a variety of situations. It is meant to address misplays discovered after the fact, such that subsequent shots after the misplay have been thrown and/or recorded. What happens if no one realizes the missed mandatory until after the round? You can't have the player replay the hole, so the score shot stands and a two-throw penalty is applied. Then the question is where do you draw the line between when to proceed with 803.12 and when to proceed with 801.04 B. That line is explicitly drawn at the point where the subsequent shot after the missed mando is made as evidenced by the whole of 801.04 B (2).

ratskrad
Mar 18 2011, 07:41 PM
801.04 addresses failing to play the stipulated course in a variety of situations. It is meant to address misplays discovered after the fact, such that subsequent shots after the misplay have been thrown and/or recorded. What happens if no one realizes the missed mandatory until after the round? You can't have the player replay the hole, so the score shot stands and a two-throw penalty is applied. Then the question is where do you draw the line between when to proceed with 803.12 and when to proceed with 801.04 B. That line is explicitly drawn at the point where the subsequent shot after the missed mando is made as evidenced by the whole of 801.04 B (2).

Understood. That doesn't change the fact that the two rules contradict each other. You can't say in one section that the penalty is one stroke and there will be no further penalty "for any other reason", and say in another section "Well, here's a case where there is a further penalty". You can't say in one section that the hole is not completed until the disc passes the correct side of the mandatory, and say in another section "Well, here's a way the hole can be completed without the disc ever passing the correct side of the mandatory".

The first part of 801.04b(2) doesn't say anything different than 803.12 so it doesn't need to be restated. The second part of 801.04b(2) should be written in as part of 803.12, and 801.04b(2) should not exist. At the very least, the "for any other reason" in 803.12e should be stricken -or- it should say "see 801.04 for the exception to this".

Additionally, I think it's disingenuous to think that everyone on a card would not realize a mandatory has been missed when it happens, but then realize it a little while later (although it must have happened since they felt a rule was needed for it). I think it only serves as an opportunity for less-than-scrupulous cardmates to stick somebody with an extra stroke - instead of saying "Hey, you missed the mandatory and need to go to the drop zone and add a stroke", they need only to wait for that subsequent shot, at which point they can say "Hey, you need to add two strokes."

cgkdisc
Mar 18 2011, 08:10 PM
The phrase "for any other reason" only pertains to the specific throw that misses the mando and has no bearing on any future throws. 801.04B(2) can't be applied until after at least one more throw is made. So there's no rules conflict since they can't be considered at the same point in the hole which Josh indicated. "For any other reason" is there so players don't combine penalties only on that throw such as the throw misses a mando AND lands OB or above 2m if that is active. The mando penalty takes priority over those other penalties which are two of the possible "other reasons" mentioned in the rule.

Players are responsible for knowing the course. So even if there are "unscrupulous" cardmates, it doesn't matter. If a player misses a mando and plays a subsequent shot, they deserve the 2-throw penalty. BTW, I've seen a missed mando "ace" which resulted in a 3 for the player with the 2-throw penalty.

ratskrad
Mar 18 2011, 08:21 PM
The phrase "for any other reason" only pertains to the specific throw that misses the mando and has no bearing on any future throws. 801.04B(2) can't be applied until after at least one more throw is made. So there's no rules conflict since they can't be considered at the same point in the hole which Josh indicated. "For any other reason" is there so players don't combine penalties only on that throw such as the throw misses a mando AND lands OB or above 2m if that is active. The mando penalty takes priority over those other penalties which are two of the possible "other reasons" mentioned in the rule.

Well stated. Thanks. (and I don't mean to imply your answer was not Josh)

Players are responsible for knowing the course. So even if there are "unscrupulous" cardmates, it doesn't matter. If a player misses a mando and plays a subsequent shot, they deserve the 2-throw penalty.

good point ;)


I'd still like to see 801.04b(2) as part of 803.12 rather than in a completely different section

cgkdisc
Mar 18 2011, 09:01 PM
It's a matter of rulebook organization. Do you put all of the misplays in one section like they are now or break them up into the rule sections where they apply? Or duplicate the text in two places which the RC tries not to do so future updates don't require dual changes with the risk of them getting out of sync.

ratskrad
Mar 18 2011, 10:38 PM
It's personal preference I know . . .

In the cases of teeing off and mandatories, since they both have actual sections listed by name in the table of contents, I feel we would be better served to have all applicable rules within those named sections.

cgkdisc
Mar 18 2011, 10:46 PM
The whole rulebook is being looked at for a major reorganization in the next few years so it's certainly a consideration.

bruce_brakel
Mar 19 2011, 05:45 PM
The whole rulebook is being looked at for a major reorganization in the next few years so it's certainly a consideration.Here's a thought that you could pass along to the appropriate folks: when a rule uses terms that are defined elsewhere in the rules, those terms should be presented in a bold or italicized font. Insurance companies do this all the time in their contracts nowadays and it is very helpful to judges who are trying to get the right answers. It is less helpful to the attorneys, who can make more money off confusion than they can off clarity.

cgkdisc
Mar 19 2011, 06:55 PM
Good idea. Thanks.

iron
Mar 31 2011, 03:17 PM
The Unplayable Lie rule was slightly diffrent from the renamed Optional rethrow rule in two ways. The word "lie" was the hangup in the old rule such that you weren't allowed to cal an unplayable until you had a lie. In which case, when you were above 2m or had missed the mando, you didn't have a lie until you first marked below the tree or at he mando drop zone, respectively. Now, you can call the Optional Rethrow anytime, anywhere whether inbounds or OB. The other way the rule changed is eliminating the up to 5m from your disc location. You always go back to your original lie if you call the Optional Rethrow.

Bruce, the Optional Rethrow doesn't allow unlimited movement back on the LOP. That's the new Optional Relief rule where you can take unlimited relief back on the LOP with a 1-throw penalty but only when taking additional relief more than 5m back from a casual relief area.

Can I get a clarification? It seems that the two statements (below) conflict
in regards to penalty strokes.
if a disc is unplayable (say in a thicket of thorns) there are 2 options:
optional rethrow or optional relief - both would require a penalty
stroke right? if so when does not recieving a penalty stroke using the
optional rethrow to avoid double jeopardy come into play???

---
1) Summary of Rules Changes
The "unplayable lie" rule has been reformulated into an "optional rethrow" rule. It is now clear that penalty strokes are not added if the rethrow option is taken, so that double jeopardy is avoided.

2) 803.06 Optional Rethrow:At any time, a player may elect to rethrow from the previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.

cgkdisc
Mar 31 2011, 04:28 PM
Last year, if you teed off and missed a mando or landed above 2m (when that rule was in effect) it would have cost you two penalty throws to go back to the tee because the rule was called Unplayable Lie. In other words, you had to first have a lie before you could call an Unplayable. The double jeopardy was getting dinged for missing the mando or 2m penalty and also getting the Unplayable penalty.

This year, the rule has been renamed Optional Rethrow and the rule states that players can call it any time, if a player misses the mando or lands above 2m (when the rule is in effect) and they don't yet have a lie. They may come back to the tee with only one penalty added for calling the Optional Rethrow.

iron
Apr 01 2011, 01:13 PM
thx

AWSmith
Apr 01 2011, 05:31 PM
This year, the rule has been renamed Optional Rethrow and the rule states that players can call it any time, if a player misses the mando or lands above 2m (when the rule is in effect) and they don't yet have a lie. They may come back to the tee with only one penalty added for calling the Optional Rethrow.

so if a player marks their lie before declaring they want a rethrow does that mean they have a lie? and therefore would take the 'double jeopardy' and get the 2 strokes added on?
also, when does a player technically have a lie?

jconnell
Apr 01 2011, 05:42 PM
so if a player marks their lie before declaring they want a rethrow does that mean they have a lie? and therefore would take the 'double jeopardy' and get the 2 strokes added on?
also, when does a player technically have a lie?

No. The Optional Re-throw rule takes the whole "lie" argument out of the equation. Doesn't matter if you've already marked or not, if you choose to take an optional re-throw, you go back to your previous lie with a one-throw penalty. No exceptions, no conditions to the ruling.

rhett
Apr 25 2011, 05:16 PM
Chuck, when do the results on the pdga.com results page go from "Unofficial" to "official"? I can't figure out whether or not I should bug any TDs to get their reports in before the next ratings update because it looks like no TD reports have been processed for over a month. TIA.

cgkdisc
Apr 25 2011, 10:35 PM
Results go official when the TD report is received and processed at the PDGA office. Then, ratings go official when the ratings process is done 8 times per year. The ratings update this time got shifted one week later so some recently received reports may not be posted until the deadline for reports for this update due to the Summit meeting prep going on now.

Patrick P
Apr 26 2011, 02:18 AM
1. When a TD submits the results online, does that mean the TD report has been received?

2. What is the cutoff time the results must be received prior to the next rating update?

3. If I only have 7rds in one year, will the highest rated round from my next prior event be selected for my 8th rd to calculate my rating?

cgkdisc
Apr 26 2011, 09:29 AM
The TD posting results during or after events has no connection with the tournament report other than the TD can use it to enter scores for uploading. The PDGA can't even fix those unofficial scores and ratings since the PDGA doesn't know anything about the event yet in terms of what divisions played what layouts in what round.

The cutoff date is posted on the PDGA Home page and it's usually around the Wednesday 2 weeks before the date new ratings will be posted.

If we have to go back more than 12 months, all of the rounds in the most recent event more than 12 months old for the player will be used, not just one or the best rated round.

Patrick P
Apr 26 2011, 01:51 PM
Other trivial questions, Say I have 10 rounds. When the most recent 25% of the rounds are double weighted, would 3 rounds actually be double weighted?

And if this 3rd round is 1 of 3 rounds in another event, is the higher rated round or last rated round in the event double weighted?

cgkdisc
Apr 26 2011, 01:54 PM
Yes. Higher.

Patrick P
Apr 26 2011, 02:29 PM
Yes. Higher. Bueno, muchas gracias!

rhett
Apr 26 2011, 04:46 PM
Results go official when the TD report is received and processed at the PDGA office.

Is there a way to tell if the office is lagging or if the report has not been received? I have a tourney from 5 weeks ago that is unofficial on the website that I'd like to see included, but I don't want to bug the TD and **** them off if they've already submitted the report.

26226
Apr 26 2011, 06:34 PM
Might be overloaded with ruling requests...

The new combined Rules and Competition Manual booklets are being printed and will be sent with the 2011 renewal packets. Not sure when those will go out but likely sometime in December if you've renewed.

2011 renewal packets should be out by December... great, only 7 more months to wait.

Patrick P
Apr 26 2011, 07:05 PM
2011 renewal packets should be out by December... great, only 7 more months to wait. Chuck's post was from Nov 2010. I received my renewal package 1-2 weeks after I renewed earlier this year.

quickdisc
Apr 26 2011, 07:19 PM
I received my renewal pack within 3 weeks !