why in the world do players have to pay money to take a test ? doesnt the pdga make enough money off of us already ? kinda rediculous that we have to pay to take a test dont you think ?

why in the world do players have to pay money to take a test ? doesnt the pdga make enough money off of us already ? kinda rediculous that we have to pay to take a test dont you think ?
When I first took the test in 2000, I paid $10 plus postage to mail it into HQ. The $10 cost is not new at all.

The test is also not required to be a member, so if you don't want to pay the $10, you don't have to. You can still be a member of the organization, you can still play any event you want except NTs and majors.

If you feel the PDGA is making "enough money", there is a fairly simple solution...

The PDGA didn't require retesting of Officials when the rules changed in 2002 and 2006, so many officials haven't had to pay $10 to retest since the 1997 rules update. It's been overdue.

I'm running a tournament in March and know that I need to retest, even though I just did this last year and paid $10. I was told that I would receive a special code to use instead of having to pay the $10 fee. This code is for tournament directors who are actually running a tournament this year. I have yet to receive the code even though I have submitted my sanctioning and insurance fess to PDGA over two weeks ago. I emailed PDGA asking to go ahead and send me the code, but never got a response. Honestly, they are horrible about responding to my emails.

Does anyone know if I can be reimbursed forthe $10 fee if I go ahead and take the exam?

I know that this is a small amount to worry about, but TDs should be helped out in anyway possible. I've already got $1,100 temporarily invested in the tournament out of my own pocket already.

Chuck, did you have to pay to take the test?

Give the office a quick call and they'll give you your code.

Chuck, did you have to pay to take the test?
No, I was a test tester. Dave asked me to take it and fail it twice before passing it the third time so I could see if there were any issues in the process or questions. I suggested some tweaks to the layout and wording so it should be a little better now on five or six of the random questions people might get on their version.

but we didnt have to pay it last year to get into the NT's why this year ? and if we fail the test do we have to pay another 10 ?

The rules changed.
You can take it more than once free until you pass it.

I desagree with the ladies having to take the exam for the USWDGC......We....PDGA already have many challenges in get ladies to attend events.....not to pick on the guys....but anyone playing a NT will more than likely play more than one even a year.
Most ladies only play one event a year.
Before they even sign up at the event , they are required to belly up PDGA membeship and the exam fee.:confused:

I hope this is not falling on deaf ears.....I will be passing my thoughts directly to the ones that count

I'd have to say that I agree with Vinnie.

Most ladies only play one event a year.
How about some facts on this? There were 963 women who played at least one rated round during 2010. They averaged 16 rated rounds in the 12 months prior to their last rated round in 2010. That would be around 8 C-tiers or more likely 5-6 events with a mix of different tiers. Out of this pool of 963 women, one in twelve (8%) only played one event and another one in twenty five (4%) may have played just one (they have 4 rated rounds which might be 2 events for some).

For comparison, 13784 men played at least one rated round in 2010 and averaged 14.5 rounds in the 12 months prior to their most recently rated round.

When is the updated list of "Rules Officials", (those who have retaken the test and passed) going to be available? The current list of certified officials is outdated since we all are required to retake to stay current. I am mostly curious as to how many will actually retake. I have and I feel as though $10 is a pretty cheap re-certification fee relative to other sports that have Officials. I would however, like to see the list updated regularly as it should be. At least once every 30 days.

How about some facts on this? There were 963 women who played at least one rated round during 2010. They averaged 16 rated rounds in the 12 months prior to their last rated round in 2010. That would be around 8 C-tiers or more likely 5-6 events with a mix of different tiers. Out of this pool of 963 women, one in twelve (8%) only played one event and another one in twenty five (4%) may have played just one (they have 4 rated rounds which might be 2 events for some).

For comparison, 13784 men played at least one rated round in 2010 and averaged 14.5 rounds in the 12 months prior to their most recently rated round.

Chuck how many of those rounds were Majors? I think that is more the point Vinnie is trying to make. I don't have a dog in the fight. I recertified and will only play in one Major.

Doesn't really matter since the same number of Majors and NTs exist for men. In fact, lower division amateur women have one more opportunity to enter a Major than lower rated amateur men because they have divisions at USWDGC but Am Nats is only for higher rated men.

Good info...Thanks......I never tracked the one event a year players that play the TWC but just from conversations with the ladies (not all) that I work with (99 at TWC2010) mandatory membership,O-test, and entry fee is alot for some of the ladies that only play TWC

Helping out women by waiving Official test fees might be a good thing. But there are other minority groups in the PDGA that might make similar claims. More women should consider running events where they get the Official's test free. Women are 7% of our players but I don't believe they are 7% of our TDs. For example, I don't know if USWDGC has had a woman TD? I think Karen Jaskolka and Mom Wallis were co-TDs or assistants. Maybe Becky Zallek back in Iowa quite a while ago?

I took the rules exam last night. How long does it take to get your results? I did notice that the discussion board had some issues yesterday as does the tournament admin pages today.

You should have gotten an email with your results right away. Maybe in your spam folder?

I did not receive any reply at all. Should I retake?

If you fail the first time, you get a code in that email that allows you to retake it free. Otherwise, you need to pay again unless you were already taking it free as a TD or touring pro? If you paid, you probably need to wait and check with the PDGA office on Monday so you don't pay again.

PDGA Official - Just an inconvenience, that's all.

I took the rules exam last night. How long does it take to get your results? I did notice that the discussion board had some issues yesterday as does the tournament admin pages today.

They are on separate systems - so it doesn't matter what happens with PDGA.com

Most common issues with not getting results in 3-5 minutes after taking the test.
1) No E-mail or bad E-Mail address
2) as it is an automated response, alot end up in spam or junk mail filters (especailly with hotmail or yahoo accounts.

You can call 1-888-840-7342 between 9AM-5PM EST MON - FRI if you wish to double check.

When is the updated list of "Rules Officials", (those who have retaken the test and passed) going to be available? The current list of certified officials is now outdated since we all are required to retake to stay current.

Chuck??

I asked Gentry and he said the new Official's list should be posted by the end of Feb. They haven't worked out the regular procedure to keep the list updated yet. May be a task for the new Tour Director when announced later this month.

I propose that all PDGA players are required to take a rules examination test each year prior to becoming a PDGA member or renewing at no cost.

I Agree. All players who participate in PDGA sanctioned events should atleast carry a copy of the current rules book.

I'm good. I have been a PDGA Official since 1997.

I propose that all PDGA players are required to take a rules examination test each year prior to becoming a PDGA member or renewing at no cost.

While that is a great idea in concept, it becomes difficult in the practical realm when players sign up for the PDGA at a tournament. Would TDs be required to administer a test? It would be one more reason for them (or other non-members) to just plunk down $10 rather than becoming a member.

While that is a great idea in concept, it becomes difficult in the practical realm when players sign up for the PDGA at a tournament. Would TDs be required to administer a test? It would be one more reason for them (or other non-members) to just plunk down $10 rather than becoming a member.
I agree with the difficulty of that scenario. But I do like the idea of requiring more players to pass the rules test. NT players are required now. The next logical step is requiring A-tier players to pass the test. Beyond that, it gets dicier.

I think the best compromise for requiring all members to pass a test is a grace period of a month, two months, something for a player to take and pass the test after joining/renewing. This takes the burden off any TDs taking memberships on the day of a tournament and allows that new member to play in that event.

Perhaps tying the earning of points or ratings to passing the test? As in, a PDGA member (new or otherwise) can participate in B & C tier events as a member, but to get credit for points or ratings for those events, they have to have passed the rules test. Those points/ratings can be retroactive, too. Say if someone plays two events before passing the test, those events could still be counted.

I was sent a link to take the test for the Masters Cup but the link brought me to a page in the pDGA store that said the test page was "under CONstruction".

Anyone want to point me to where I can submit to this $10 test that should be included in the price of a pro membership since we pay more to begin with?

I got to this link:
https://ssl.breinerlogistics.com/PDGAOfficial/OfficialTest.php

erased

One question seemed to be wrong. One player picks up another player's gimmie. The remedy was incompletely stated so there really wasn't a correct response. The correct response should have said the offender gets his strokes and the lie is replaced as close as possible to the original lie, "as agreed to by the group". The last phrase was omitted giving the impression that we can replace our own lies where we think is best without group consent.

Did anyone else read that question differently?

I had the same feeling. The correct answer would have had the offending player receiving two strokes, but that wasn't one of the options.

That question was submitted for correction but they haven't gotten around to update it yet.

Another rule question seemed to be inconsistent when examined. A disc is stuck in a tree for 4 minutes. Before the player gets to the lie it falls. Where is it marked? The question doesn't state whether the 2 M rule is in effect or not. If it is in effect, I believe the player takes it where it lies with no penalty, (provided he didn't delay getting to the disc). If the 2M rule is not in effect, I believe it should be marked directly below where it had come to rest originally. That seems inconsistent or I am reading the rules wrong.

The only time a disc is replaced to its original position is if it's moved in any fashion before a player gets to it to mark it and it was on the playing surface or on/in the target (see 803.07B). Discs in positions above or below the playing surface are considered "live" until the player marks them unless another person directly interferes with the disc's position by touching it. If another player's disc hits a disc above/below the playing surface, that disc is marked at its new position. You can see that some of the wording in the 2m rule section need to be moved out of there so it's more clear they are in effect whether the 2m rule is in effect or not.

Another rule question seemed to be inconsistent when examined. A disc is stuck in a tree for 4 minutes. Before the player gets to the lie it falls. Where is it marked? The question doesn't state whether the 2 M rule is in effect or not. If it is in effect, I believe the player takes it where it lies with no penalty, (provided he didn't delay getting to the disc). If the 2M rule is not in effect, I believe it should be marked directly below where it had come to rest originally. That seems inconsistent or I am reading the rules wrong.
I think you're reading the rule wrong. The problem comes with saying the "2M rule is not in effect". Rule 803.08 is ALWAYS in effect. The only thing that is optional is the penalty for being suspended above 2M.

So whether the penalty is in play or not, the rule still applies.

You can see that some of the wording in the 2m rule section need to be moved out of there so it's more clear they are in effect whether the 2m rule is in effect or not.


The rule books specifically states under 803.08: (Sections C through E are ONLY used if the two meter penalty is in effect.)

Please note the use of the ONLY! Regardless of what is intended, if the two meter rule is not in effect, then 803.08D is specifically excluded. That means that players could look to 803.07B. However, that rule says "Disc at rest on the playing surface...". Clearly a disc suspended in a tree is not the playing surface.



Hopefully, the question will be removed from the exam or be updated to say the 2 meter rule is in effect. If 2MR isn't in effect, there is technically no rule to cover the situation described and testers would be correct in applying 803.07B under the Rule of Fairness (since 803.08D is clearly excluded from being used.)

Discs in positions above or below the playing surface are considered "live" until the player marks them unless another person directly interferes with the disc's position by touching it. If another player's disc hits a disc above/below the playing surface, that disc is marked at its new position.

Chuck

Please specifically point to the rule you are citing when the 2 Meter Rule is not in effect. Are we simply assuming that if the disc is "not on the playing surface or supported by the target" then is is "live". I cannot find anything saying discs are "Live" if they are not on the playing surface.

I'm using 803.07B. If a disc is not at rest on the playing surface or on/in the target, then its position can be changed by some force, other than direct human touch interference, before the player marks it.

The next section says if a disc comes to rest above the playing surface it must be marked directly below. According to the "live" interpretation, this is impossible because a disc is not at rest above the playing surface. Therefor, your interpretation of "live" is in error.

There's an interesting anomaly when looking at these rules. If a disc is at rest on the playing surface inbounds and another player's disc hits and moves it, the result is the disc is moved back in its original position before being marked. However, if a disc is at rest on the ground in an OB area and it gets struck by another disc, it is still live and its position will be marked where it ends up which could be inbounds. If you read the definition of "playing surface" it can only exist inbounds. So no location on, above or below ground in an OB area can be a playing surface meaning all discs are live in OB until player marks their next lie.

According to the "live" interpretation, this is impossible because a disc is not at rest above the playing surface. Therefor, your interpretation of "live" is in error. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
A disc can be at rest and still be live at the same time. Read what I just posted regarding a disc on the ground in OB for example. The definitive moment is when the player arrives to mark their lie. If the disc at rest is not on the playing surface or target, it's live in the sense it can be moved before the player gets there to mark it.

There's an interesting anomaly when looking at these rules. If a disc is at rest on the playing surface inbounds and another player's disc hits and moves it, the result is the disc is moved back in its original position before being marked. However, if a disc is at rest on the ground in an OB area and it gets struck by another disc, it is still live and its position will be marked where it ends up which could be inbounds. If you read the definition of "playing surface" it can only exist inbounds. So no location on, above or below ground in an OB area can be a playing surface meaning all discs are live in OB until player marks their next lie.

This does not seem to be the case. A disc is considered OB when it comes to rest. Even if it is moved after. It is still considered OB, according to my reading. The only other instance is when the status has not been established and the disc is moved.

The rules imply there's a time period between when a disc comes to rest and when the owner marks it. The location of the disc is sometimes allowed to change during that time period depending on its location when it first comes to rest. It's not allowed to change if its initial location is on the target or playing surface (inbounds by definition). Any other location and the disc location can change before marking due to some force other than direct human touch.

I reread the question about the disc that was in the tree for 4 minutes. My reading tells me that regardless of whether or not the 2M rule was in effect, the answer should have been the disc is marked directly below where it originally came to rest and there was no penalty. The rule book states that if the disc falls below the 2M mark subsequent to the player's arrival, no penalty. The mark on the surface was already established by the disc coming to rest above the surface.

Another related element is when a disc lands in water whether it's OB or casual. The rule states it comes to rest once it's floating or moving only due to action of the water. Since discs at rest anywhere in OB or floating on casual water are not on a playing surface by definition (disc at bottom of casual water IS on playing surface), another player's disc can hit these discs and potentially bump them inbounds before their throwers mark their wet discs.

Another related element is when a disc lands in water whether it's OB or casual. The rule states it comes to rest once it's floating or moving only due to action of the water. Since discs at rest anywhere in OB or floating on casual water are not on a playing surface by definition (disc at bottom of casual water IS on playing surface), another player's disc can hit these discs and potentially bump them inbounds before their throwers mark their wet discs.

The only time that would matter is when the 2M rule is in effect and still the mark is not changed. Whether or not a disc is on the playing surface, once it comes to rest, the position is established. It is only the penalty status that might be changed for a 2M rule. The other OB penalties do not change.

The rule book states that if the disc falls below the 2M mark subsequent to the player's arrival, no penalty. The mark on the surface was already established by the disc coming to rest above the surface. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
The last statement in 803.08D is, "The thrower may not delay in order to allow the position of the disc to improve." This implies that, in fact, a disc's final position for marking is not determined until the player gets there. A lie can only improve if it's okay for the disc's position to change from the time it first lands above the playing surface until its owner marks it.

Whether or not a disc is on the playing surface, once it comes to rest, the position is established.
This can't be true. Otherwise, why would section 803.07B specifically call out "playing surface" and "target" for special treatment? If the RC wanted a disc's marking position to be established at the time it comes to rest, no matter where it is, then 803.07B would simply state, "Once a disc at rest is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location..."

This can't be true. Otherwise, why would section 803.07B specifically call out "playing surface" and "target" for special treatment? If the RC wanted a disc's marking position to be established at the time it comes to rest, no matter where it is, then 803.07B would simply state, "Once a disc at rest is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location..."

803.09 803.08. Both state "come to rest"

As for why they specifically state playing surface and basket; those positions are replaced.

Chuck, you are reading an extra word into the one section. You are seeing that the disc "can only" come to rest on the playing surface or the basket. This is not true. Discs can come to rest above or below the playing surface or in OB. That is why I referred you to those sections.

As for why they specifically state playing surface and basket; those positions are replaced.
Exactly. They are the only locations where a lie has been locked down before the owner gets there. I would have thought that somewhere along the way you had this discussion about a disc above the ground being live until it's marked? It's been that way in the rules since I started and you were there ten years before me. Here's the section in the 1990 rules that was removed in later editions presuming that identifying only the playing surface and target in the current wording was sufficient?

1990 Interference 803.06B If a disc at rest or a marker disc is moved, the disc or marker will be replaced as close as possible to the original lie, as determined by a majority of the group or an official, with these exceptions: a disc that rests in an out-of-bounds area or is in a lie above ground shall be marked from its new location if it is moved by an outside agent, such as the wind or a competitively thrown disc.

Exactly. They are the only locations where a lie has been locked down before the owner gets there. I would have thought that somewhere along the way you had this discussion about a disc above the ground being live until it's marked? It's been that way in the rules since I started and you were there ten years before me. Here's the section in the 1990 rules that was removed in later editions presuming that identifying only the playing surface and target in the current wording was sufficient?

1990 Interference 803.06B If a disc at rest or a marker disc is moved, the disc or marker will be replaced as close as possible to the original lie, as determined by a majority of the group or an official, with these exceptions: a disc that rests in an out-of-bounds area or is in a lie above ground shall be marked from its new location if it is moved by an outside agent, such as the wind or a competitively thrown disc.

That's history. Please read the sections I noted.

What you are missing is that a disc at rest is locked down as the lie only in certain situations - when it's on the playing surface and on the target. In all other cases, a disc at rest means nothing until the thrower arrives at its location to mark it. Until then, its location can change. That's consistent with rules history and subsequent wording changes haven't changed that interpretation although apparently they may have made it less easy to see.

What you are missing is that a disc at rest is locked down as the lie only in certain situations - when it's on the playing surface and on the target. In all other cases, a disc at rest means nothing until the thrower arrives at its location to mark it. Until then, its location can change. That's consistent with rules history and subsequent wording changes haven't changed that interpretation although apparently they may have made it less easy to see.

You still need to read the cited sections. A disc at rest determines the lie.

You still need to read the cited sections. A disc at rest determines the lie.
Correct. But not until it is actually marked by the owner in some cases. Until then, the disc position can change until it is at rest at the time the thrower gets to it. The only exceptions are called out in 803.07B when the lie is locked down before the thrower gets there when it's on the target or playing surface. It's very clear.

Cited rule 803.08 "If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other obstacle on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface." The act of "marking" (per Marking a Lie rule) cannot occur until the owner arrives at the disc. This rule does not say "the lie IS officially under the suspended disc" on purpose because we know it is allowed to move even after it first comes to rest per 803.08D and according to 803.07B which specifically excludes discs not on a playing surface or target.

Cited rule 803.09. A disc isn't officially OB until the player makes that declaration. It can be at rest for quite awhile until that happens. However, no lie has been established even if a disc is at rest OB until the player both declares that it's OB and the player either marks the lie or throws from the previous lie or drop zone. Until then, the player's disc can move its location, potentially into IB, not by action of the currents which is ecluded by rule, but by a competitor's disc hitting it.

Where the lie can be marked is fixed. It doesn't matter if the disc in OB moves, the lie is established by where it went out before it came to rest. It cannot be moved after by another disc wind current dog or anything.

A disc in a tree is marked directly below even if the disc falls prior to marking. The only thing the fall does is prevent a penalty. If this is not so, I want to know exactly where in the rule book it says anything different. I don't want your interpretation. I want what the rule book says. That is all we have when we play.

A disc that comes to rest determines the lie, it is not the lie, but the lie cannot be changed.

Please tell me how you think the lie can be changed as is not determined by the disc coming to rest. Again, not your interpretation, but the actual verbiage in the rule book.

I've already shown exactly where it states that the lie can potentially change once a disc is at rest (803.07B disc at rest not on target or playing surface can move and 803.08D where disc can drop to a potentially better lie) plus showed the historical 1990 explicit wording precedent that has not changed and lead to the current text that says the same thing in a different way. Complain to Harold and the RC but I'm certain that is how suspended discs are handled. Just like you used to have to run to retrieve wedgies, you need to move quickly to mark your disc under a tree if you're worried it wiil drop and roll into a nearby OB area.

I've already shown exactly where it states that the lie can potentially change once a disc is at rest (803.07B disc at rest not on target or playing surface can move and 803.08D where disc can drop to a potentially better lie) plus showed the historical 1990 explicit wording precedent that has not changed and lead to the current text that says the same thing in a different way. Complain to Harold and the RC but I'm certain that is how suspended discs are handled. Just like you used to have to run to retrieve wedgies, you need to move quickly to mark your disc under a tree if you're worried it wiil drop and roll into a nearby OB area.

No. No running is required. Not under the current rules as written. 803.08(A):

"If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other obstacle on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it."

There is no exception stated in the rules if the disc comes to rest above the playing surface and then is moved by a player, spectator, animal or act of nature. The exception is only for whether you take a penalty when the two-meter rule is in effect. 803.08(D):

"No penalty shall be incurred if the disc falls, unassisted by a player or spectator, to a position less than two meters above the playing surface before the thrower arrives at the disc. The thrower may not delay in order to allow the position of the disc to improve."

Nothing in 803.08(D), or anywhere else, provides that if the disc comes to rest above the playing surface and then is moved, then the lie should change. The location of the lie for a disc above the playing surface is established when the disc comes to rest.

If, by some process of editing, the RC has changed the rule from what they intended, they need to change it back.

Currently, when the disc comes to rest above two meters, just like when it comes to rest on the playing surface, its lie is established.

If Davei is incorrect, show us the exception to 803.08(A).

I'll state it again, the thrower has to get to the suspended disc to "mark" the lie. It doesn't exist until then. If the disc moves before it's marked, either the disc was still moving and not really "at rest" in the tree or some some force must have moved it. If some force has moved it we look at the Interference rule to see if it tells what to do when your disc at rest is moved. It tells us that only discs on targets and the playing surface are replaced unless a person touched it. Then 803.07A tells us what to do. This current wording replaced the original wording from 1990 which perhaps was more clear but the intent and current words result in the same rulings. There is no inconsistency apparently just misunderstanding.

blow wind blow !!!!!!!
please fall from tree before i get there.
please save the additional stroke that i will get if my disc remains above 2 meters

Fortunately, you live in a state where a wind gust could pop up at any time...:)

I'll state it again, the thrower has to get to the suspended disc to "mark" the lie. It doesn't exist until then. If the disc moves before it's marked, either the disc was still moving and not really "at rest" in the tree or some some force must have moved it. If some force has moved it we look at the Interference rule to see if it tells what to do when your disc at rest is moved. It tells us that only discs on targets and the playing surface are replaced unless a person touched it. Then 803.07A tells us what to do. This current wording replaced the original wording from 1990 which perhaps was more clear but the intent and current words result in the same rulings. There is no inconsistency apparently just misunderstanding.

Then I'll state it again: There is NOTHING in the interference rule that could be read as an exception to 803.08(A):

"If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other obstacle on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it."

The interference rule does not contain the word "only" as you used in your paraphrase of the rule.

The interference rule does not contain the word "only" as you used in your paraphrase of the rule.
Already covered before. If in fact other locations than the playing surface and target were included, then the wording would simply state "a disc at rest anywhere gets replaced." And we have the precedent from the 1990 rules that specifically excluded discs in OB and suspended above that I cited in an earlier post. They simply rewrote it with fewer words in the current manner with the same intended meaning and exclusions.

Already covered before. If in fact other locations than the playing surface and target were included, then the wording would simply state "a disc at rest anywhere gets replaced." And we have the precedent from the 1990 rules that specifically excluded discs in OB and suspended above that I cited in an earlier post. They simply rewrote it with fewer words in the current manner with the same intended meaning and exclusions.

The reason those two instances were cited for "replacement", is that those are indeed on the playing surface or basket, and are "marked" there. The other locations are not on the playing surface, so they would not be "replaced". They have, however "come to rest", and dictate where the mark is to be placed. And that mark can't be changed by the action of another disc, spectator, wind, water, etc. Once the disc has come to rest, it is dead, and the mark is established.

If the status of a disc's position is undetermined until the group gets close enough to determine the status, that is when the "comes to rest" spot is determined. The group has to determine whether or not the disc has moved from its original position, if they can. Benefit of the doubt goes to the player.


I don't understand how you don't understand the difference. But, the fact that you don't appear to, means (to me), that a lot of other people won't understand either. Bruce and I seem to be reading the same rules book, but you seem to be reading another. I wonder how many other people are having this problem.

It's clear that there is a time period between when the player throws and the player can mark their lie. That's the time period you're overlooking. The player cannot mark the lie until they arrive at their disc. However, the interference rule locks down that lie at the time of the throw if it comes to rest on the playing surface or the target (which is not on the ground in the same way a disc is suspended above ground in a bush or tree). The Interference rule does not lock down the lie for a disc in any other location regardless whether it has come to rest. The disc must be at rest when the player arrives to mark it even if it is in a different position than when it initially was thought to come to rest.

BTW, this whole discussion could have been cleared up simply by looking in the Rules Q&A which supports what I've been saying. Check out the Conclusion at the bottom of the "Disc Knocked Out of Tree" Q&A http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers-0

It's clear that there is a time period between when the player throws and the player can mark their lie. That's the time period you're overlooking. The player cannot mark the lie until they arrive at their disc. However, the interference rule locks down that lie at the time of the throw if it comes to rest on the playing surface or the target (which is not on the ground in the same way a disc is suspended above ground in a bush or tree). The Interference rule does not lock down the lie for a disc in any other location regardless whether it has come to rest. The disc must be at rest when the player arrives to mark it even if it is in a different position than when it initially was thought to come to rest.

BTW, this whole discussion could have been cleared up simply by looking in the Rules Q&A which supports what I've been saying. Check out the Conclusion at the bottom of the "Disc Knocked Out of Tree" Q&A http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers-0

That doesn't clear anything up for me. However, as suggested by Harold, I believe adding the words "first comes to rest" would fix everything. It presently says "comes to rest". This apparently allows for further interpretation that should not happen.

That would not fix everything. There's a good reason the interpretation goes the way it does and that's because you many times can't be certain whether a disc has come to rest when above ground since many times you can't see it. The only thing you really know for sure is what the disc's status is when the player or group gets there to find it and mark it. In the RC's wisdom long ago, they decided it was better to be consistent and mark suspended lies at the time the player arrived, wherever it was, than have an inconsistent mark based upon "if you can see your disc stop in the tree after you just threw it, your lie is below the disc. If you don't see it, then mark it wherever it is when you get there." That would be a poor rule revision which you are espousing. Not only that, if you can see it stop and it later moves before you get there, the odds of you marking the lie under where it was originally would always be suspect and a bone of contention in the group, especially since many times a few inches or feet could make a huge difference.

That would not fix everything. There's a good reason the interpretation goes the way it does and that's because you many times can't be certain whether a disc has come to rest when above ground since many times you can't see it. The only thing you really know for sure is what the disc's status is when the player or group gets there to find it and mark it. In the RC's wisdom long ago, they decided it was better to be consistent and mark suspended lies at the time the player arrived, wherever it was, than have an inconsistent mark based upon "if you can see your disc stop in the tree after you just threw it, your lie is below the disc. If you don't see it, then mark it wherever it is when you get there." That would be a poor rule revision which you are espousing. Not only that, if you can see it stop and it later moves before you get there, the odds of you marking the lie under where it was originally would always be suspect and a bone of contention in the group, especially since many times a few inches or feet could make a huge difference.

Thank you for at least admitting that due to past and current rules revisions this point is not clear anymore.

Perhaps a new Q & A on this specific situation should be included until the rule book can be amended again?



I have a related question.

I drive first off the tee and my drive lands in the OB road. I decide to take my lie where I was last in-bounds. Everyone else in my group tees and we proceed to our lies. Players B, C & D all throw their second shots. Player D hits a tree and then another tree. After player D throws his 4th shot, about 3 or 4 minutes have gone by and we finally get to where my disc went OB. As the group is deciding where to mark my lie, a car drives over my disc. The disc flips up and lands back in-bounds and rolls another 15 feet down the fairway and stops right next to the basket.

Where do I take my lie, and why?

Your disc was interfered with before your group arrived at it to be marked. Your disc isn't officially OB until someone in your group officially confirms it with you or you have chosen to declare it OB by rethrowing from the previous lie or marking the lie at the last point IB (or throwing from drop zone if available). So, we have a disc that was interfered with before an OB determination had officially been made. Per Interference 803.07B, the disc was not initially at rest on the playing surface (which must be inbounds by definition) nor the target so this doesn't tell us if the disc's position is pinned down or not. So we look at 803.07A for additional guidance. The closest we have is what happens when a spectator interferes with a shot 803.07A and the disc is marked where it ends up, which is inbounds in your example. Of course, if your group thinks the driver intentionally interfered with your disc by deliberately swerving to run over it, you would also have the option to retee.

Say your drive lands above 2m in a tree. Next player drives and hits your disc out of the tree. Your disc rolls 150ft away from the basket, down a hill and into OB. Where is your lie?

Say your drive lands above 2m in a tree. Next player drives and hits your disc out of the tree. Your disc rolls 150ft away from the basket, down a hill and into OB. Where is your lie?

I would say, by my understanding of the rules, that your lie is directly beneath where the disc came to rest in the tree if your group agrees that it did. Chuck would say you get the lie where it rolled.

I concur with Dave. The lie is directly beneath where the disc came to rest (803.08.A).

Say your drive lands above 2m in a tree. Next player drives and hits your disc out of the tree. Your disc rolls 150ft away from the basket, down a hill and into OB. Where is your lie?
It's OB. You were not yet at the tree to mark it so 803.08A does not apply. Your disc had not come to rest on the playing surface or target so 803.07B does not apply. For confirmation, read the "Disc Knocked out of Tree" Rules Q&A: http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers-0

The reasoning behind this is that many times you can't tell if a disc is at rest in a tree from far away even if you maybe can see it. Many times you can't even see it to know whether it was at rest and whether a competitive disc actually struck it to knock it down or whether falling down and another disc entering the tree were independent events. With all of these possibilities, the RC decided long ago to not pin down a player's lie until they actually got to their disc and it was at rest at that point. This is consistent with the OB rule where a disc is not OB until players arrive at the disc to confirm it.

For example, your group is 40 feet away from reaching the tree where a player thinks his disc has landed. At that moment, it drops out of the tree and starts rolling toward OB. The player takes off running toward the disc and stops it. Disc gets marked at the point it was stopped (803.07A) and player gets a 2-throw Interference penalty (803.07C) but saved his disc.

The Q&A is discussing whether or not a 2m penalty is assessed, not where to mark the lie.

Read the Conclusion of that Q&A and it's clear the player marks the disc where it ends up after dropping down.

I did. The assumption in that text is that the disc simply dropped from the tree, not rolled 150ft to another location. This is a case where the Q&A was not written cleanly and another reason why the Q&A should not be considered official rules. They are an explanation of the rules. In this Q&A they addressed the question on whether or not a 2m penalty should be assessed if a disc is knocked down. That is the only question I believe they intended on answering. Until another Q&A addresses the question of relocation, I will follow rules as I (and others on this thread) read them. The rules seem pretty plain that a disc hit by another disc should be replaced in its original location.

The title of the Q&A is simply "Disc Knocked out of Tree." How do you play it? Answer: You play it where it lies. It was even made more clear in the Q&A statement: "A disc being hit by another disc is no different than a disc being blown down by a gust of wind." 2m has no bearing on this since it was written after the 2006 rule change that made 2m rule optional.

Here's the draft text of the simplified version of the Q&As currently being prepared:

2011.08 : Disc knocked out of tree
Question – Is there a penalty involved if one player’s throw knocks another player’s disc out of a tree or from some other position above the playing surface before it’s marked?
Response – Player whose disc is knocked down marks from wherever it ends up, even if it rolls a ways and possibly OB. If OB, player gets the OB penalty. If 2m rule was in effect, player does avoid that penalty since the disc was knocked down. The player whose throw knocked down the disc gets no penalty for knocking it down.
Applicable Rules - 803.08 Disc Above and Below the Playing Surface, 803.07 Interference

I'm going to have to agree with Dave and Krupicka on this one. I did read the Q&A relating to "Discs knocked out of tree" and say the logic in the Q&A conclusion is flawed.

First apply 803.08A "If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other obstacle on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it."

Second review 803.08D "No penalty shall be incurred if the disc falls, unassisted by a player or spectator, to a position less than two meters above the playing surface before the thrower arrives at the disc."

Now, the Q&A comes up with some very illogical conclusions.
A disc being hit by another disc is no different than a disc being blown down by a gust of wind.
A disc hit by another disc is interference and assisted by the thrown player, and a gust of wind is a natural force.

The intent of 803.08(D) is to prevent buddies or fans from moving the player's disc before a 2-meter determination is made (giving the player an advantage).
So are they saying, If I am playing alongside with my buddy, and I am happen to be 7 feet from his disc stuck in the tree, and I happen to throw my disc at his disc and knock it out, there is no consequence to this action if I just helped him save a stroke. I might be ten strokes in the lead so maybe no consequence to me, but my buddy is a stroke up from 2nd on the last hole, and I just assisted in knocking his disc out of the tree.

They are taking a unique interpretation of this rule as to take into account the intention of this rule. However, the rule does not need to be further defined by intent, as it's clear as to what it says. Unassisted is the key word. They say because a disc that hits another player’s disc was not intended to hit the other disc, so therefore the disc has a new lie and you mark it at its new resting position. Sorry, but I disagree. Who cares if the player was not intending to hit another player's disc in the tree? The fact is, the thrown disc did interfere with the disc resting in the tree and the disc falling from the tree was in fact assisted by another player indirectly. Intent has nothing to do with it, it is the measurable actions that we should take into account and to apply the rule as it is written.

Say one car sits at the bottom of a hill, and my car is at the top of the hill. I put my car in neutral and push it to gain enough momentum to barrel down the hill and it so happens to run into the car at the bottom. Well guess what, I just assisted my car into hitting the car at the bottom. It doesn't matter if I intended to hit the car at the bottom. If I had not assisted my car and put it into motion, the car at the bottom would have never been hit, regardless of my intent. I know, not the greatest example. But my point is, when you throw your disc, regardless of your intent, your actions of throwing the disc and displacing another disc is assisting the new location of a rested disc.

So the way I interpret 803.08(D) is that when you throw your disc and you so happen to knock another disc out of a tree, you ASSISTED the other disc to fall, regardless of intent.

If we want to take a look beyond the rules and imply intent, then we should find the error in the Interference rule 803.07B "If a disc at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official."

Let’s now play the “apply the intent of this rule” game. The intent of this rule is that if you interfere with a disc it should be placed back to where it was regardless if it's on the playing surface, or supported by a target, or (to be added) IF IT COMES TO REST ABOVE OR BELOW THE PLAYING SURFACE.

If we follow the same logic of the Q&A, by implying that a player has no intent of moving another disc when they throw, then therefore if any disc comes into contact with another disc, then the disc previously at rest should be marked at its new lie.

You just can't infer one logical conclusion for one scenario and then not apply it to another scenario. Bottom line, if a disc interferes with another disc, the original disc should be placed to where it originally was.

If the rules don't state it this way, then I propose they do.

A disc hit by another disc is interference and assisted by the thrown player, and a gust of wind is a natural force.
It doesn't say that a disc hitting another disc is interference. The only time it can be interpreted as interference is when another disc hits a disc at rest on the playing surface or the target.

So are they saying, If I am playing alongside with my buddy, and I am happen to be 7 feet from his disc stuck in the tree, and I happen to throw my disc at his disc and knock it out, there is no consequence to this action if I just helped him save a stroke.
That might be seen by others in your group as subverting the rules in the same way not agreeing to second a foot fault might save your buddy a penalty. It could also be ruled by others in your group to be conscious interference per 803.07C and subject to penalty. Usually, when you get close to a player's disc that's suspended, the group will want the player to mark the shot and not delay which the rule supports (803.08D).

Patrick what you're missing and the position you are working from is that the player and group can see exactly what is happening like a video. I would say that in most cases, the group cannot see the disc in the tree at all from the point where the player threw from. In fact how many times have you thrown and thought it was in the tree but it was on the ground because it must have dropped perfectly in the sight line where the trunk(s) blocked your view? The RC has written the rule from the perspective that most of the time, we can't see the disc land, maybe it stopped, maybe not, maybe fell on its own part way, all the way, maybe got struck or disrupted by a bird or another disc flying thru. The rule has to cover those scenarios (and actually does although it appears more clarification is required) that most of the time we can't see everything happen.

So that's why the disc is never really officially at rest when suspended above the ground until the group gets there to see it and mark it. The rule clearly states that when it is at rest above ground you mark directly below it. But you cannot execute this statement in the rules until you have arrived at the disc to do so. Until then, the statement is meaningless and other rules prevail. It would appear that al that's needed is to add the words to the end of the first sentence of 803.08A, "but not until the player arrives at the disc location." I believe that resolves any misunderstanding on this aspect of when a disc can actually be marked when not on the playing surface or target. It's when you get to it.

i dont understand what the confusion is? just the discontinuum guys picking a fight...no surprise. its like your taking the rule and bending and twisting it in every possible way just to argue. but with your profession i guess it makes since.

as i understand the 2m rule, it is not officially a 2m penalty until it is MARKED on the playing surface when the group arrives at the spot of the foul (and doesnt the group have to approve of where you mark they lie?). plus is the disc really at rest in a tree? if its a windy day the tree and disc will be blowing around, doesnt sound at rest to me. or the fact it could still move at any moment. for a disc on the ground to all of a sudden start moving by nature it would have to take some gnarly natural events to make that happen. thats why the rules say all over the place, you mark your disc where it lies at rest on the playing surface.
plus can you accurately tell from 300+ft away the position of the disc relative to the playing surface? NO you cant, i dont care how amazing you are you just cant, the human eye and brain are not capable unassisted.
Patrick the scenario you suggest is ridiculous. first that breaks the etiquette rules. and 2, do you really think your group wont notice that if your killing the entire group? come on man. also your car metaphor doesnt apply whatsoever, shouldve thought it through further if you wouldnt to have an impact on your point.
the assumption being made with another player hitting the disc out is the player will not intentionally sacrifice their throw to assist another player. maybe a slight rules revision may be needed to clarify for those that choose to distort obvious meanings to try and benefit themselves.
i gotta be honest, since the first time i read the rule back in 2005 it has never confused me at all. and im awful with understanding 'lawyer speak'. the rules have that kind of tone and writing style.

this argument kind of reminds me of the Memorial this year, when Barry hit the car and spectator and stayed inbounds. the spectator did not intentionally assist Barry (you can tell by the fact he took off in his car as fast as possible). he did not take a stroke and played from its RESTING position on the playing surface.

Chuck, please stop claiming that Q&As solve questions about rules. They don�t. If they did, the board of directors would certify them.

The Q&As are opinions no better than our own. At best, the Q&As were written by the same group that wrote the rules that we can�t understand. At worst, the Q&As were dashed off solo by the former chair of the RC, a guy who is intelligent and can throw a disc a mile but his view of the rules is tainted by his own public statement, �It is impossible to write the rules in a manner that will prevent them from being misapplied or misinterpreted.�

The Disc knocked out of a tree Q&A�s answer starts by ignoring half of the question (about where to mark the lie), and rambles through illogic that�s more confusing than the rules it supposedly explains. Even if you skip to the alleged conclusion, you�re left with at least two interpretations:

�It�s a lucky break for the golfer whose shot was originally stuck in the tree! He gets to play his disc where it now lies.�
Chuck, you�ve interpreted that to mean, �Mark the lie according to wherever the disc now rests � whether that's below 2M in the tree or 150� away in OB.�

Meanwhile Krupicka has interpreted the same thing to mean, �The disc in the tree has been knocked down below 2M, so the player is lucky that he gets no 2M penalty.� (I.e., �where it now lies� indicates below 2M rather than above 2M.)

We�re better off to set aside the Q&A and consider just the actual rules.

However, those rules create this conundrum: Chuck and Davei each find, within the rules, evidence that supports their points of view. Both of them can argue until they're blue in the face, but neither can prove the other wrong by the evidence of the rules themselves.


* * *

This thread (like many others) is arguing minutiae rather than facing the big truth: the PDGA rulebook is dysfunctional.

Posts #36 - 84 look like Larry, Mo and Curly trying to wedge through a doorway. Each contributor is trying to make sense of the rulebook . . . and the rulebook is a scramble of unclearly written jigsaw pieces that don�t fit.

Q&As can�t solve this problem � they raise more questions than the rules themselves. And the eight rulebook revisions since 1980 vividly show that endless tinkering just keeps making the problem worse. The PDGA needs to replace its entire rulebook with a start-from-scratch new set of rules for disc golf. Rules that are as simple as the game itself. Rules that don�t conflict with each other. Rules that make sense to average players in situations on the field of play. Clear rules that need no interpretations or Q&As.

The PDGA owes its membership a clear rulebook. Of all the things our $75 dues pay for, nothing is more central to the sport.


Mike Williams


PS: ONE version of a clear, sensible disc golf rulebook is available immediately by clicking HERE. (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) This alternative rulebook solves the two scenarios in the thread this way:


� A disc sticks in a tree above IB: the lie is on the ground directly below wherever the disc first stays still for 2 seconds.

� Discette�s Post #72 scenario: Discette�s tee-off disc first stayed still for 2 seconds on the OB road, so Discette now is lying 1 on the tee.

Hmmm, no vested interest here .........

• A disc sticks in a tree above IB: the lie is on the ground directly below wherever the disc first stays still for 2 seconds.
Doesn't work. Your drive appears to stick in a tree but the group can't see it (typical scenario). Group gets to the tree and discovers the disc on the ground 50 feet from the tree. Where's the lie? Do you guess where the disc was in the tree for at least 2 seconds? The revised Q&A for "Disc knocked out of Tree" in blue in post #81 helps clarify it.

i dont understand what the confusion is? just the discontinuum guys picking a fight...no surprise. its like your taking the rule and bending and twisting it in every possible way just to argue. but with your profession i guess it makes since.
It's a discussion forum, an open forum to discuss and gain a good understanding of the rules, and determine ways that we can improve the rulebook (if need be). Situations, although rare, do come up so it helps to discuss scenarios before they may arrise on the playing field. The Barry Memorial scenario is a good example, as you can see even the top pros had some additional discussion about it before making a ruling.

your car metaphor doesnt apply whatsoever, shouldve thought it through further if you wouldnt to have an impact on your point. Yeah, I had a good laugh afterwards, I knew I was going to get a rash for that example. I was just trying to explain the cause and effect that a player's thrown disc does act in the sense of assisting in the new placement of a disc stuck in a tree if it comes into contact with it.

I hope you can appreciate that these discussions are in no way intended to create verbal fights. To the contrary, they're meant to invigorate thought and discussion and hopefully enlighten our fellow players to help formulate clear and concise rules that anyone can understand at first read. Thanks for your thoughts.

Hmmm, no vested interest here .........

I wish there was a way to place an ignore on a poster. I'm getting really sick of hearing about his alternative.

Here is the rule I propose: If a disc comes into contact with another disc and that disc is moved, the disc will be replaced to its original approximate location (regardless of where the disc was located, whether it be on the playing surface, resting on top of the basket, above or below the surface, OB, or in a tree.)

Let me try to explain this in another farfetched example. 4 players step up to infamous and challenging hole 18, a 200ft hole that is open on both sides with a slight upward slope up to 160ft out with the basket straight ahead sitting atop a hill with a row of trees surrounding 270 degrees outward of the basket from about 40ft from left to right. Beyond the trees, the hill slopes downward 150 feet until it reaches a creek bed which is OB. There is one particular large tree 40ft behind the basket that has a branch that extends towards the basket hanging just below 2m in the air. There is a clear and visible view of the basket from the tee pad.

Player A drive lands miraculously 7ft in front of the basket resting on the playing surface.
Player B drive hits the hanging tree branch and falls on top of the basket and rests there.
Player C drive hits the same hanging tree branch, unfortunately the disc stays in the tree branch, which everyone is familiar that this branch is below 2m.

Player D, feeling lucky after seeing 3 very well placed shots decides to go for it as well. He throws a low line drive which skips off Player A disc that was laying on the ground, then it skips up towards the basket and hits Player B disc which was resting on top of the basket, then the disc continues on to hit Player C disc that was hanging in the tree, and to make it worth your while, the disc deflects backwards and eventually falls down into the basket for an ace!

However, Player A, B, and C aren't so lucky as their discs all catch an edge after being struck from Player D disc and proceed to roll through the trees, down the 150ft slope and all land into the OB creek bed.

Now, I know, you’re saying to yourself, where the heck do I make this (*) up. But my point here is all three discs were struck by another player’s disc. And guess what happens? According to the current rules, Player A gets to put his disc back 7ft in front of the basket, with no penalty. Player B gets to put his disc back on top of the basket with no penalty. However, Player C is assessed either with an OB penalty and must throw 150ft up the hill from the creek bed, or choose an optional rethrow to throw another drive from the tee shooting 3.

Now, tell me Chuck, does that make any sense? 3 discs unintentionally interfered with by another disc and you have two different outcomes because of our current rule book. See again my proposal at the top.

Patrick, I have been leaning towards agreeing with Chuck on much of this post but your farfetched example is outstanding.

I agree that doesn't seem to be the intent of the rules.

Now I don't know what to think.

Outstanding example though.

I really did see this happen one time. I was playing Snap Ching though so we all knew knew just what to do!!

Again, your perspective regarding discs above the playing surface is based on the group being able to see the disc in the tree and having the long range depth perception to know where the lie would be on the ground below it in case it moves before you get there. Note that even the discs on the ground and target might not get returned to their spots if the group didn't know they were struck and moved. In many cases, discs will have been moved in some fashion (wind) and no one will have seen it until they arrive to find/see the disc.

Here's the fundamental scenario that has to be resolved consistently with whatever rule is in place. The first drive goes into a tree and sticks. In one case, the group sees it and watch it get struck and knocked down with the following drive. In another case, the group thinks the disc is in the tree but can't see it. They watch another drive go into the tree and fly thru. A few seconds later, the original disc falls out of the tree. Was it struck or not? Where did it first land in the tree? Was it above or below 2m if that rule was in effect?

The current rule handles all of these situations the same way - i.e. in every case, the disc in the tree will be marked where it ends up. I'm not sure there's another rule that would fairly handle these scenarios the same way. You're proposing that in the first scenario where the disc was seen and struck, the group guesses where the disc was first in the tree to mark the lie. In the cases where it wasn't seen, the group has to make an even less reliable guess where the disc was in the tree and in the case of 2m, whether it was above 2m or not? That's an awful lot of guessing. And if the group is sure the disc stuck in the tree but when they get there, it's on the ground 50 ft from the tree, do we assume the disc was at rest in the tree long enough that the mark is under where they think it originally was suspended for enough time or maybe it never stopped in the tree at all and had gone through and landed on the ground.

These scenarios and more were played out by the RC in multiple discussions at various times over the years and they decided consistently that when the disc is suspended above the playing surface, it's final resting place is not determined until the group gets there to find it and mark it because too many scenarios cannot be seen by the group from where the throws were made.

chuck,
side question. is there a rule somewhere that states 'that it is a players turn when the group has determined that the lie is legal and the are the furtherest from the basket (keeping in mind the speed of play rules).'

i just want everyone to know that i have superhuman eyes and i can see exactly where the disc was in the tree....<cough...cough>

801.02c

Just took and passed the officials test, but barely.

I missed one about a disc being found 3 minutes and 13 seconds after a player announces "Time starts now". This may seem pretty straight forward, and I almost jumped on the obvious "at 3 minutes the disc is lost" answer. However, the 2011 rules say:

803.11 Lost Disc:A. A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official. Two players or an official must note when the timing of three minutes begins.

So I felt my answer of "play where disc was found" is the most correct answer. Agreed?

I also missed the one about the player picking up another player's disc saying it's a gimme. Boo. The other one I missed was just crappy mouse clicking.

Wait so if the disc is found while walking out of the woods you were looking in after 3 minutes is called, it still gets counted as lost? that doesnt seem right....even if its before anyone makes another throw?

Wait so if the disc is found while walking out of the woods you were looking in after 3 minutes is called, it still gets counted as lost? that doesnt seem right....even if its before anyone makes another throw?
Yes. That's the reason there's a three minute time limit. If we waived the penalty for just happening to find the disc after 3.5 or 4 minutes have passed, what's to stop players from just ignoring the time limit altogether and looking for 10 minutes?

As it is, how often does the protocol get followed on this rule? My typical experience has been everyone gathering and searching until someone finds the disc or someone decides to speak up and say "I think it's been at least three minutes, call it lost". If there's no official clock being observed, who's to say if 3 minutes has really elapsed if the disc is found after a call of lost is made but before a subsequent shot is thrown?

Usually, I'm the one in my group who makes the call to "start the clock". I've always interpreted the "two people must note" part as one person marking the start aloud so that another player in the group hears and acknowledges (rather than muttering or counting to oneself), so I would think the correct answer is "the disc is lost at 3 minutes". And usually I make the call after the whole group has been gathered and has been looking for probably 30 seconds already. I don't do it immediately upon gathering in the hopes that someone else will do it and it seems I'm always disappointed.

It's just another in a long list of actions for which the majority of players fail to follow proper protocol and rules interpretations and calls get fuzzy or outright missed.

im glad i know now...ive played it wrong then a few times. live and learn

alot of people around here call the 3 minute rule. it makes me happy cause i used to be of the only ones as well. now im the jerk calling the 30sec rule. but theres a certain player that brought that out of me.

When's the last time you heard the person who was looking for their lost disc actually call out and initiate the 3 minute rule?

When's the last time you heard the person who was looking for their lost disc actually call out and initiate the 3 minute rule?
Do you mean initiating the clock or calling off the search after 3 minutes and declaring a disc lost?

I'm almost always the one to initiate the clock in my groups, including on my discs so therefore, I'm the one who calls time and declares my disc lost as well. Aside from that, I can't say I've seen the player himself make the call on his disc. At least not without some prompting from a groupmate first.

Played in a B-Tier recently and at the turn, (between holes #18 and #1),
I declared my intention to walk over to the portapot and use the restroom.
I was to be 1st on the box.
Someone in my group who was to be 2nd said,
" I will wait 30 seconds and I am going to give you a 7 for not being on the box. "
This was obvious gamesmanship. Because I was leading our group at that time.
I know that giving me a 7 would be wrong...
but the only rule I could find would require a courtesy violation on the 30 second rule.
Needless to say I held it until later... Glad that I could :P

Is there anything that gives a Restroom exception in the rules?
I looked and didn't find anything.
Thanks for any clarification on this.

Played in a B-Tier recently and at the turn, (between holes #18 and #1),
I declared my intention to walk over to the portapot and use the restroom.
I was to be 1st on the box.
Someone in my group who was to be 2nd said,
" I will wait 30 seconds and I am going to give you a 7 for not being on the box. "
This was obvious gamesmanship. Because I was leading our group at that time.
I know that giving me a 7 would be wrong...
but the only rule I could find would require a courtesy violation on the 30 second rule.
Needless to say I held it until later... Glad that I could :P

Is there anything that gives a Restroom exception in the rules?
I looked and didn't find anything.
Thanks for any clarification on this.
First, I'd have told the guy to go blank himself, but that's just me. I hate it when people try to work me, especially if they're trying to do it with the rule book. Or worse, with a phantom rule like giving some one a "7" for anything. If you're going to work me, at least try to do it with a real rule.

Second, 801.03 states that a maximum of 30 seconds is allowed to each player after "...the player has taken a reasonable time to arrive at the disc and mark the lie; and, the playing area is clear and free of distractions." I'd say a quick trip to the restroom between holes doesn't qualify as taking an unreasonable time to arrive at your next lie. And that having to go could be viewed as a "distraction" in your playing area. Besides, how is he to know whether the hole has been cleared by the group in front of you if you haven't gotten to the tee? If it hasn't, there's no rush because any 30 second clock can't start until the group ahead is out of range.

Third, you're right, the penalty for exceeding 30-seconds during a round (as observed by two players or an official) is a warning on the first offense, then a stroke on subsequent offenses. Regardless, you still get to make your shot before he can step in and make his, otherwise he is subject to a courtesy violation for playing out of turn. So if his concern was speed of play, his threat doesn't really do much good.

Thanks Chuck for elaborating on the "disc knocked out of tree" matter. I see what you mean about the multiple scenarios that can be played out and it would be difficult to make an accurate determination where to mark the lie. I guess it's one of the unique aspects of our sport. The way I convinced myself to agree with the ruling is that I look at the disc as suspended in play and could be moved at any time and randomly come to rest anywhere prior to marking the lie.

I think the rule needs to indicate that a determination of "at rest" cannot be made, when a disc appears to be suspended, until the group arrives to make the call. Even then, there are times when a disc will never be absolutely "at rest" and a "relatively at rest" call must be made by the group to keep the game moving. What I mean by that is that if a disc is wedged in some branches or solidly trapped in the chains on a very windy day, the disc and branches or chains can be continually moving in the wind such that they are never actually at rest. However, the disc itself is relatively at rest in relation to what is holding it. You may never have thought about it in this way but we all have called the disc at rest in these cases based on a relative versus absolute 'at rest' call.

If you're going to work me, at least try to do it with a real rule.

Second, 801.03 states that a maximum of 30 seconds is allowed to each player after "...the player has taken a reasonable time to arrive at the disc and mark the lie; and, the playing area is clear and free of distractions."

I believe that the wording of " a reasonable time to arrive at the disc " is the most pertinent rule addressing the situation.
Next Time I will be better prepared :D

Thanks for the imput Josh C.

Think i found a(nother)incorrect question:


Question 18: Disc Moved

Player A is parked under the basket, and player B putts out, and picks up player A�s disc saying 'That�s a gimme' and hands the disc to player A. How should player A proceed?

A) Player A moves to the next hole and counts the gimme on his score.
B) Player A puts the disc back to its approximate location and throws their next shot with no penalty.
C) Player A puts the disc back to its approximate location and throws their next shot. Both Player A and Player B receive a one throw penalty.
D) Player A puts the disc back to its approximate location and throws their next shot with no penalty. However player B gets a one throw penalty.
E) Player A puts the disc back to its approximate location and throws their next shot with no penalty. Player B is disqualified for intentional interference.


From the rulebook:

"8.03.07 Interference

C. Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc, or consciously moves or obscures another player's thrown disc at rest or a marker disc, other than by the action of a competitively thrown disc or in the process of identification, shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning., if observed by any two players or an official."

Player B getting 2 penalty throws wasn't an option in the test question.

@pgyori - Here's a clue. re-read the question "How should player A proceed?"

There is a correct answer in the list on how player A should proceed. It doesn't ask what should happen to player B. It can be a tricky question if intrepreted for more than what the question is asking.

@pgyori - Here's a clue. re-read the question "How should player A proceed?"

There is a correct answer in the list on how player A should proceed. It doesn't ask what should happen to player B. It can be a tricky question if intrepreted for more than what the question is asking.
In essence I agree with you in that the question is asking how does Player A proceed, but there are answers (C, D, & E) that mention a penalty/punishment for Player B. So I understand why one would think the option of penalizing Player B two throws should be there.

My argument of why it isn't there would be that there's no mention of a third person there witnessing the incident. Obviously there has to be at least one other player in the group with Players A and B, but he's not mentioned as being right on the spot (he may have already walked off to the next hole). The rule for the automatic 2-throw penalty says "if observed by two or more players or an official". Player A alone can't assess the penalty.

That may be giving the authors of the question too much credit, but there you go.

I do agree with pgyori with arriving at the conclusion on how the entire scenario should be played out. That should be the purpose of the question on how to assess the ruling in which this could and probably does happen. I find the question to remind me of some college exam where they try to throw you off by providing answers that can mislead the reader or have you select the most right answer of the direct question. I hope that wasn't the intent, but looking at the answer base it appears maybe that might be the case. With the absence of the "should be answer" as pgyori pointed out, then I find the question to be very lacking in providing an understanding of the rules. Unless, the answer base is in error and D should say two throw penalty.

Hey Chuck,
After I have taken the rules test for the 3rd time, how many more times do you think I will have to take it?

Not sure but hopefully you'll get there.

Wow what a discussion and how confusing. Im getting ready to take the exam and hope things are more clear than this. It did make me think of another scenario and wondered what the call may be.

A player thows a disc that stick into a tree. Upon arrival to the tree the disc can not be seen. It appears that the disc is actually lodge inside of a half rotting tree but can not be retrieved.

Is this a lost disc? If not and the two meter rule is in effect, where is the lie? Who is to say the disc hasnt fallen within the tree below the two meter mark?

This actually happened to me and just wondered what the call should have been.

@pgyori - Here's a clue. re-read the question "How should player A proceed?"

There is a correct answer in the list on how player A should proceed. It doesn't ask what should happen to player B. It can be a tricky question if interpreted for more than what the question is asking.

Sorry for the delay, but i would still disagree. The correct answer is not on the list. Player A should go back to his lie and play it out without penalty (answer B), but that answer is incomplete. He should also initiate a penalty on player B, which, if seconded (technically, it doesn't say it needs to be seconded, just that it needs to be observed by 2 players) would result in Player B getting a 2-stroke penalty.

Personally, depending on the event, if i were Player A, i would most likely give Player B a verbal warning, and assess the strokes if he does such an action again. If it was an A-Tier or higher, there should be no need for a warning, and i would initiate the assessment of a penalty.

I was going to write something but realized I was in this thread and it should be a new thread. Is there a way to delete? Sorry!

Any Word on when the PDGA Officials Card will be Shipped ?

Any Word on when the PDGA Officials Card will be Shipped ?

I was thinking this too. I got a letter in the mail saying they would ship them out in March, but no card yet.

I was thinking this too. I got a letter in the mail saying they would ship them out in March, but no card yet.



this is an expensive program to implement they need 2-3 more NTs to hit the 5k total in fees then the can afford the postage..

this is an expensive program to implement they need 2-3 more NTs to hit the 5k total in fees then the can afford the postage. Woudn't it make more sense that before a player registers or renews, they are required to pass an official exam? Everyone should have to pass the officials exam including new players to PDGA. And rather than having one card for an official and one card for a current PDGA member, one card could be issued to show you have passed the exam and your a current PDGA member, TADA! Eliminate the cost of two cards and additional postage.

Woudn't it make more sense that before a player registers or renews, they are required to pass an official exam?
Not allowing walk-up registrations, especially at C-tiers wouldn't be a desireable ploicy. Now that the more automated process for administering the exams is being shaken down this year, I expect there will be discussions to potentially require even more players to take the test in the future although not everyone.

Not allowing walk-up registrations, especially at C-tiers wouldn't be a desireable ploicy. Now that the more automated process for administering the exams is being shaken down this year, I expect there will be discussions to potentially require even more players to take the test in the future although not everyone. That's true. Maybe on the PDGA sign up form it states the player must pass the official exam before becoming a full member and receiving their PDGA membership. Notice would be sent out via email their request to be a member has been received and a link for the official exam. Player passes the exam, membership package is sent out and a green check mark is next to their name on PDGA.

Having all members required to pass the exam essentially becomes a requirement for all players to be PDGA members including at B & C-tiers. How can you justify allowing nonmembers to play if they aren't required to pass the test? It sort of defeats the purpose of having everyone who plays having passed the test if nonmembers are allowed to play.

That certainly throws the monkey wrench into the mix. I guess only "active" members would be required to take the official exam?!? I could just see it now. "Well screw that, I'm not taking any test. I'll just be a non-member and I don't have to take that silly test." Looks like my attempt failed.

Okay, since all officials have to renew this year, I'll go ahead and take the test again. Maybe my $10 will push funds over the edge and we can get the official cards in the mail :-)

Curious, if a non-member played in 5 PDGA events in one year would they automatically become a member, or would they still have to signup and pay the annual fee?

Curious, if a non-member player in 5 PDGA events in one year would they automatically become a member, or would they still have to signup and pay the annual fee?

They'd still have to pay the annual fee and become a member.

Yeah, I finally took the Official exam to renew this year! Missed one question because somehow I still confuse myself when it comes to questions with the word "not" in it. PDGA, you can start mailing those official cards now.

I noticed the exam was much smoother this time around than I previously took it back in 2009.

I take the Officials Exam whenever I'm asked to. Makes things easier.

I try to bring my Current rules book to each tournament , just in case !!!