lockhartkent
Jan 22 2011, 11:25 PM
Can you hang onto a tree like on a steep bank for example. As long as you are not moving any branches between you and the hole? I know you can't change the line to the hole but can you hold on to the trunk for balance as long as it does not change the line of play?

Thanks Kent

jconnell
Jan 23 2011, 09:27 AM
Can you hang onto a tree like on a steep bank for example. As long as you are not moving any branches between you and the hole? I know you can't change the line to the hole but can you hold on to the trunk for balance as long as it does not change the line of play?

Thanks Kent
So long as the tree is not closer to the hole than your mark and it is solid enough not to move/bend under your weight, yes you can hang onto a tree for balance.

cgkdisc
Jan 23 2011, 10:50 AM
You can even have someone behind you (ex. caddy) hold your hand for support while throwing.

lockhartkent
Jan 23 2011, 11:57 AM
Thanks that is what I thought. Got into it with a guy today in casual play, and just wanted to clarify Before it happens in a tour situation. Thanks again

Hoser
Jan 23 2011, 07:09 PM
Re Post #3:


You can even have someone behind you (ex. caddy) hold your hand for support while throwing.

Chuck, your scenario may need a Q&A ruling by the RC. The committee will be interpreting the following rules, to make their ruling:



803.01 General.

A. Players shall play the course as they find it.
If you let someone support you as you throw, you�re changing the course from �as you find it.� That change of the course may expand your strategy options, your range of motion, your confidence or comfort to stand and throw, and your opportunity to score low.

Under the rules of play, the only penalty you can get for not playing the course as you find it would be DQ for cheating: 804.05A(3).



803.04 Stance, subsequent to teeing off.

C. [On putts within 10M] The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.
If the other person�s support aids your balance after you release your putt, it may bring into question whether you are demonstrating full control of balance before you advance toward the hole.



803.05 Obstacles and relief.

A. A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle. It is legal for a player�s throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.
The first sentence uses the word �stance� in an unclear way. As I�ve suggested on the �2011 Rules Update� thread (Post # 86), 803.05A is unclear about whether your stance in relation to obstacles is your body�s position at the instant you release your flight, or your body�s position just before you start your throwing motion.

If the latter is true (which is how disc golfers usually play) then in Chuck�s scenario, the thrower will be okay if, just before the throwing motion starts, his stance isn�t moving the supporting person at all. Then if the thrower cause �incidental movement� (whatever the heck that it) of the supporter�s position during the throwing motion, no problem.

But if the former is true, then the thrower is not allowed to shift his caddy�s position at all via the throwing motion, because that would violate the �least movement� restriction at the instant of release.



803.07 Interference.

C. Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc . . . shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by any two players or an official.


Competition Manual Rule 3.5 Carts and Caddies.

B. A player�s caddie is subject to all items with in the PDGA Rules of Play.

C. Misconduct by a caddie may subject the player and caddy to disqualification and/or suspension.
If a player (not caddy) supports you as you throw, and if you throw a different flight path than you would have thrown without the support, then, logically, the supporting player earns a two-stroke penalty for altering the course of your thrown disc.

If CM 3.5B makes your caddy a �player� in regard to 803.07, then your supporting caddy would be doing the same violation as a supporting player � i.e., altering your flight � which probably qualifies as caddy misconduct under CM 3.5C.



804.05 Disqualification and suspension.

A(3) Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.
If you let someone support you, to aid your throw, are you cheating? That�s up to the TD to decide.

ishkatbible
Jan 23 2011, 08:30 PM
at first i didn't see the problem with the caddy thing... but then i read, and wondered why hoser didn't mention...

from the comp. manual
3.5
D. Players must instruct their caddies to maintain a reasonable distance and not interfere with a competitor attempting his or her shot.

Hoser
Jan 23 2011, 09:04 PM
Thanks, Ishkatbible. Yep, that�s what CM 3.5D says. But it leaves me wondering:


� If Bubba�s caddy follows Bubba�s instruction to �Stand behind me and hold my hand while I throw,� is the caddy maintaining a reasonable distance?

� If Bubba�s caddy follows Bubba�s instruction to �Support me while I throw,� is the caddy interfering?


Ishkatbible, do you think CM 3.5D governs Chuck�s scenario? If so: pro or con?

I don�t know the answer. I�m just asking how the rule looks to you.

ishkatbible
Jan 23 2011, 09:43 PM
the arguement would be as you have pointed out... aiding and interfering are not the same. whatever the "correct" call may be.. who knows. i certanly won't have the quoteable answer.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 01:04 AM
It's quite possible that the only person who can't support you is your caddy due to the caddy rules. However, anyone else does not appear to violate any rule. I know it's been done. It's on video a few times and been done in front of top officials a few times and been approved. I don't see any changes in the 2011 rules that would change that. It's possible the throw might have to be outside 10m however due to the balance rule. The examples I remember were outside 10m.

august
Jan 24 2011, 08:57 AM
It's quite possible that the only person who can't support you is your caddy due to the caddy rules. However, anyone else does not appear to violate any rule. I know it's been done. It's on video a few times and been done in front of top officials a few times and been approved. I don't see any changes in the 2011 rules that would change that. It's possible the throw might have to be outside 10m however due to the balance rule. The examples I remember were outside 10m.

This seems intuitively wrong whether technically allowed or not. No player should be allowed to be physically assisted by another person in making a shot.

Sharky
Jan 24 2011, 10:10 AM
Outside 10 meters who really cares? Inside: can of worms!

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 10:29 AM
This seems intuitively wrong whether technically allowed or not. No player should be allowed to be physically assisted by another person in making a shot.
In the examples I remember seeing, the lie was a steep bank going down usually into water. In some cases, the player was OB and marked 1m from the water or they didn't land OB but were close to it on the bank. As I see it, the designers didn't specify a relief rule that would prevent players from trying to play from the steep bank. While they could have marked the top edge of the bank as the OB line, that gets cumbersome and more expensive to mark and maintain compared with the default water line being OB. If players aren't required to move off the steep bank or given a "no penalty" casual relief option to move off the steep area, then players will attempt to make the play from there, especially if allowed to have another player help support them, to avoid penalizing themself with an Optional Rethrow penalty and relocation.

Hoser
Jan 24 2011, 10:33 AM
Re Posts #9 and #10.


August hits the nail on the head. If you allow anyone � caddy, fellow player, or gallery � to physically aid your shot and give you a scoring advantage, you are cheating. Your action is a willful circumvention of 803.01A �play the course as you find it� and the penalty is DQ under 804.05A(3). If you let anyone physically support you, to aid your shot, you are playing the course differently from how you found it, just the same as if you had planted a new tree behind your stance.

And 803.07C (interference) should give a two-stroke penalty � for altering your flight � to any player who physically supports your shot.

CM 3.5B makes your caddy subject to rules that affect players. CM 3.5C makes you responsible for your caddy�s conduct. Those two rules don�t clearly spell out the consequence of your caddy altering your flight, but logically one of two things should happen to you: you get the two-stroke penalty (for altering your flight) that your caddy would get if he were a player; or you and your caddy get the boot under 3.5C.

Chuck, the �top officials� in your videos made a mistake under the pre-2011 rules, and they�ll make another mistake if they rule the same under the 2011 rules.


PS to Ishkatbible: your �full contact� logo is eerily appropriate.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 10:37 AM
If you let anyone physically support you, to aid your shot, you are playing the course differently from how you found it, just the same as if you had planted a new tree behind your stance.
That's a bogus argument because you are allowed to put a towel down on the tee or under your knee on the course to aid your stance, so support from another person isn't out of the question.

And 803.07C (interference) should give a two-stroke penalty – for altering your flight – to any player who physically supports your shot.
Each paragraph is about interfering with a disc in play, not the player. The Interference rule is not relevant to this discussion unless maybe another player tackles the thrower.

august
Jan 24 2011, 10:50 AM
In the examples I remember seeing, the lie was a steep bank going down usually into water. In some cases, the player was OB and marked 1m from the water or they didn't land OB but were close to it on the bank. As I see it, the designers didn't specify a relief rule that would prevent players from trying to play from the steep bank. While they could have marked the top edge of the bank as the OB line, that gets cumbersome and more expensive to mark and maintain compared with the default water line being OB. If players aren't required to move off the steep bank or given a "no penalty" casual relief option to move off the steep area, then players will attempt to make the play from there, especially if allowed to have another player help support them, to avoid penalizing themself with an Optional Rethrow penalty and relocation.

My opinion would be that the slope is a natural obstacle of the course and is not to be altered by having a human assist a player in standing on that obstacle. This mitigates the effect of the obstacle in an unfair way.

jconnell
Jan 24 2011, 10:53 AM
That's a bogus argument because you are allowed to put a towel down on the tee or under your knee on the course to aid your stance, so support from another person isn't out of the question.
Gotta agree with Chuck here. If it isn't specifically prohibited by the rules, then I can't see where there's much basis to call it "cheating".

The interference rule doesn't really apply here because the rule pertains to altering the flight of the disc. Someone supporting the throwing player is doing nothing to the disc in flight.

And how does the location of the lie relative to the 10-meter circle make a difference? Within 10 meters of the target, the player must establish balance before advancing past his/her mark. So long as they do establish that balance before advancing, what difference does it make how they get to the point of establishing it? In other words, if a player receives support (hand holding, providing a foot hold, whatever) from someone behind their mark, let's go/breaks contact with that person after the release and establishes balance all on their own before advancing, where's the violation?


If you really want to make an argument against another player or a caddy or a spectator assisting a player in any manner described in the thread, why not approach it from rule 802.04 Artificial Devices? THAT seems the most appropriate rule to me. You only have to convince me that another human is an artificial device not specifically allowed by the rule (such as abrasion control devices or medical items).

august
Jan 24 2011, 10:58 AM
That's a bogus argument because you are allowed to put a towel down on the tee or under your knee on the course to aid your stance, so support from another person isn't out of the question.


Each paragraph is about interfering with a disc in play, not the player. The Interference rule is not relevant to this discussion unless maybe another player tackles the thrower.


I would agree that this has nothing to do with altering one's flight. However, it could be considered building a stance. The towel is the only stance enhancement allowed in the rules. A human could be considered an artificial device that may assist in making a throw if said human is preventing a player from slipping or falling down a sloped playing surface.

I will never believe that the rules have been intentionally written to allow such nonsense.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 11:26 AM
Might want to look at the Maintaining Balance While Putting Q&A. Seems to allow a person providing support since the person would be behind the lie and also is not part of the course where the least movement rule is relevant:
http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers-0

august
Jan 24 2011, 11:47 AM
Might want to look at the Maintaining Balance While Putting Q&A. Seems to allow a person providing support since the person would be behind the lie and also is not part of the course where the least movement rule is relevant:
http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers-0

That opinion speaks about holding on to objects that are part of the course. A human being is not such an object. On the other hand, if said human is meant to be a part of the course and will be standing in the same position throughout the entire round, then perhaps there is some merit to allowing what you propose. But if the human is moving around like usual, then the human is not part of the course.

BTW, this is the kind of preposterous application of the rules that helped me decide not to re-certify as an official.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 12:01 PM
This is an example how our game is different from ball golf. It may seem preposterous because support like we're discussing couldn't really be done in ball golf so we've never seen it. But jumping away from preconceived notions on how our sport should be played in comparison, allowing support in tricky circumstances doesn't seem to be an unreasonable option as a limited defense against less than optimal grooming and/or course marking that we encounter with the low budget development of many courses.

Hoser
Jan 24 2011, 12:06 PM
Re Posts #12 and #14.


In the examples I remember seeing, the lie was a steep bank going down usually into water.

Chuck, those examples are course design problems that don�t absolve players of responsibility to play the course as they find it.

BTW, �cumbersome� and �more expensive� are lousy excuses for a TD to put players in the position of having to choose between taking a dangerous stance or playing optional rethrow with penalty.


You are allowed to put a towel down on the tee or under your knee on the course to aid your stance, so support from another person isn't out of the question.

It�s true that 803.05 (obstacles and relief) doesn�t bar you from moving objects that help, rather than impede, play. (See the definition of �obstacle,� about help v. impede.) So 803.05 doesn�t bar you from putting a towel (or anything else, including a fellow player) under your knee, or from moving someone into a position to support you as you throw.

And it�s true that 802.04A (artificial devices) lets you put a towel under your knee to control abrasion.

But the allowances of 802.04 and 803.05 don�t change the fact that you willfully circumvent 803.01A if you get someone to support you as you throw.


Each paragraph [of 803.07] is about interfering with a disc in play, not the player. The Interference rule is not relevant to this discussion unless maybe another player tackles the thrower.

Disc golfers customarily apply 803.07C only to alterations of flight that happen after the disc leaves the thrower�s hand. But the rule makes no such distinction. 803.07C says �Any player who consciously alters the flight of a thrown disc.� If you physically support someone, to enable them to throw differently than if you weren�t supporting them, you are consciously altering the flight of the disc that they throw. If the RC meant to prohibit only interferences that happen after the disc is released into flight, they should have said so in the rule.

Hoser
Jan 24 2011, 12:15 PM
Re Post #16.


Josh, behind my calm exterior of apparently natural skin and designer clothes, I am in fact an artificial device with superpowers akin to the Green Hornet. So if you use me to support you when you throw, you are indeed violating 802.04. Bad boy! :cool:

august
Jan 24 2011, 12:22 PM
This is an example how our game is different from ball golf. It may seem preposterous because support like we're discussing couldn't really be done in ball golf so we've never seen it. But jumping away from preconceived notions on how our sport should be played in comparison, allowing support in tricky circumstances doesn't seem to be an unreasonable option as a limited defense against less than optimal grooming and/or course marking that we encounter with the low budget development of many courses.

On the contrary, I can imagine it being physically possible in ball golf, but I suspect it is not legal and therefore, not done.

Using a human being to physically assist with taking a stance is unequivocally an unreasonable and unfair option in that it is not an option available to all players; it requires the consent of another human being. If the rules are going to be officially interpreted to allow the physical assistance of another human being in making a throw, then that is contrary to the spirit of the game.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 12:32 PM
If the rules are going to be officially interpreted to allow the physical assistance of another human being in making a throw, then that is contrary to the spirit of the game. <!-- / message -->
Again, only by your conservative definition of the game. A non-moving tree trunk for support behind a player's lie isn't always available either. I do agree that this option should be made explicitly clear since it falls in this murky area we're discussing. For example, if support by another person is explicitly allowed, I would want a more general definition that allowed someone to sit down on a chair for example. As it is, a player can sit on a boulder that's conveniently in position for a legal stance but a chair would specifically not be allowed as I read the artificial devices rule.

pterodactyl
Jan 24 2011, 12:56 PM
I've hooked my foot around that tree behind me a number of times inside 10m so I don't foot fault. I've never hooked it around another person or asked anyone to hold me back. I don't think you should be able get assistance from another person. My $.02.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 01:16 PM
There are guys nicknamed Tree. Acceptable? ;)

august
Jan 24 2011, 01:16 PM
Again, only by your conservative definition of the game. A non-moving tree trunk for support behind a player's lie isn't always available either. I do agree that this option should be made explicitly clear since it falls in this murky area we're discussing. For example, if support by another person is explicitly allowed, I would want a more general definition that allowed someone to sit down on a chair for example. As it is, a player can sit on a boulder that's conveniently in position for a legal stance but a chair would specifically not be allowed as I read the artificial devices rule.

I seriously doubt that it is only by my "conservative definition of the game". I would bet that most players think this should not be allowed. I agree that if this is specifically allowed or not allowed, it should be explicitly made clear in the rules.

Right now my opinion is that using a human for physical support to make a throw constitutes using an artificial device.

august
Jan 24 2011, 01:19 PM
There are guys nicknamed Tree. Acceptable? ;)


What if the guy's nickname is Range Finder or GPS?

veganray
Jan 24 2011, 01:32 PM
OK, here's the way I will use this section of the Chuck Kennedy Rulebook. I am 73.5" tall & have a tippy-toe-to-extended-fingers length of 97.16". My putter has a diameter of 8.35". The height of the upper wire of the bucket of a standard target is 29.5", and the outer rim of the bucket is 13.5" from the pole. Assuming that gravity will cause the disc to drop into the basket if 51% is extended over the rim of the bucket & the disc is released, I (with the CK-endorsed assistance of a sufficiently tall "helper" or a chain of "helpers") can safely execute a drop-in on putts up to 110.35", that is, 9 feet 2.35". See diagram:
http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/pdga.jpg
That RULES!

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 01:33 PM
The Competition rules haven't really addressed bionically enhanced players that might have a GPS chip embedded or an artificial limb. It's definitely a new horizon. Does a Legend with an artificial heart have an endurance advantage over those who have original equipment? What about artificial limbs like a spring arm? That might be an advantage.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 01:36 PM
Vegan, tall players already have a reach advantage in this sport in a variety of situations which hasn't been restricted by the rules so why is your example a problem?

veganray
Jan 24 2011, 01:46 PM
I'm not bemoaning tall players' advantage (nice red herring attempt), merely pointing out that your rule allows for drop-ins from over 9" for a slightly-above-average size player. Assuming the average player is 69" & has a tippy-toe-to-finger length of 89" (probably pretty conservative considering the very-much-mostly male makeup of the population of disc golfers), and that the average putter diameter is 8.35", an average player taking full advantage of your "helper" nonsense will have 100% drop-in ability from 101.79", nearly eight and a half feet. Everyone should take advantage of this "rule" on windy days & any other time the 8-footer is causing some knee-quaking.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 01:58 PM
Players already can start their putting motion with their non-stance foot in front of their mark and lift it just before releasing the putt. That would seem much more effective for getting close to the target than your contrived example. BTW, I've been passing along an RC interpretation where support from another person seems to be allowed, not my interpretation. I'm okay with it but would prefer a more explicit notation in the rules regarding the rare option.

veganray
Jan 24 2011, 02:02 PM
It would only seem so to one who is a dolt. Do a simple test with the "crane" putting technique you describe (without, of course, using a "helper" to assist you in maintaining balance behind the lie after the release) & see your effective drop-in (not short, easy throw, but 100% drop-in) range. I guarantee it will be WAY less that 8.5 feet.

august
Jan 24 2011, 02:11 PM
Players already can start their putting motion with their non-stance foot in front of their mark and lift it just before releasing the putt. That would seem much more effective for getting close to the target than your contrived example. BTW, I've been passing along an RC interpretation where support from another person seems to be allowed, not my interpretation. I'm okay with it but would prefer a more explicit notation in the rules regarding the rare option.


I look forward to seeing an RC published Q & A specifically saying that you can be physically assisted in your stance by another human and that it is not considered use of an artificial device. Once that gets published, I can save some money by not renewing next year.

cgkdisc
Jan 24 2011, 02:23 PM
It would only seem so to one who is a dolt. Do a simple test with the "crane" putting technique you describe (without, of course, using a "helper" to assist you in maintaining balance behind the lie after the release) & see your effective drop-in (not short, easy throw, but 100% drop-in) range. I guarantee it will be WAY less that 8.5 feet.
It may be a little less effective distance-wise but I suspect your chain of arm linked supporters might be judged "subverting the rules" and disallowed. If your diagram helps persuade the RC that support by a person(s) not be allowed then fine. I would think all support behind the lie would need to be disallowed including any immovable obstacles on the course that wouldn't be considered a "playing surface" like bigger tree trunks, fences or walls. Touching them is okay based on "least movement" but using them for support not allowed. Another judgment call - touching versus supporting - sometimes would be required in tight quarters.

veganray
Jan 24 2011, 02:23 PM
Mike,
Once I see that Q&A, I may just buy a pair of ridiculously long and stiff clown shoes (or maybe oversized jumping skis would work well), bring a large number of "helpers" along with me on all my tournament rounds, and become the world's greatest putter, able to ensure 100% drop-in accuracy from a distance only limited by the strength of the material of the shoes (or skis) and the number of "helpers" I can recruit.

Oh, and rejoin the PDGA so I can use my newfound putting awesomeness to make some major coin. ;)

veganray
Jan 24 2011, 02:25 PM
It may be a little less effective distance-wise but I suspect your chain of arm linked supporters might be judged "subverting the rules" and disallowed.

Certainly no more subversive than using a single person, as you suggest. I believe you have blindly stumbled upon the absurdity of your "interpretation".

august
Jan 24 2011, 03:27 PM
Mike,
Once I see that Q&A, I may just buy a pair of ridiculously long and stiff clown shoes (or maybe oversized jumping skis would work well), bring a large number of "helpers" along with me on all my tournament rounds, and become the world's greatest putter, able to ensure 100% drop-in accuracy from a distance only limited by the strength of the material of the shoes (or skis) and the number of "helpers" I can recruit.

Oh, and rejoin the PDGA so I can use my newfound putting awesomeness to make some major coin. ;)

Good enough then Ray. I will then be your on-call caddie. At 6'3", I would probably be in demand.

Jeff_LaG
Jan 24 2011, 04:17 PM
From the Rules Q&A:

Maintaining balance while putting (http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers/maintaining-balance-while-putting)
Question: "I have a good rules question for you involving the stance rules. A player uses an object (in this case a branch) behind him to maintain balance for a putt. First, would this be considered "full control of balance"? Second, could you argue, if the branch is not so large that the players body weight will not move it, that it is a violation of 803.03 D and or 803.04 A because they could have moved the branch less by not hanging on it? Thanks for any input."

Response: The question can be boiled down to: Can a player hold on to an object behind his lie to maintain balance while throwing/putting?
Applicable rules: 803.04 (Stance), 803.05 (Obstacles and Relief), 804.05 (Disqualification and Suspension)

Discussion: The rules do not require that you maintain your balance while putting. You can have a grand mal seizure as long as you don't step ahead of your lie. At the time you decide to step ahead of your lie is when you have to demonstrate balance. This is simply to prove that you are not committing a falling putt, such that you would not be able to stop yourself from falling forward due to the motion of your putt. Grabbing a branch is merely acquiring another support point, which is perfectly legal, as long as it is not ahead of your lie.

Holding on to something BEHIND your lie is not prohibited by the rules, provided that the tree that the golfer is using as a supporting point is in-bounds (803.03.A (3)). The branch must not be moved, or else the player would be in violation of one or both of 803.04.D and 803.05.A, which require you to take the stance that results in the least movement of objects that are part of the course and which prohibit you from moving a branch to "make room for a throwing motion".

Conclusion: A player can hold on to something behind her lie, in certain circumstances, without violating the PDGA rules. In general that which is not prohibited by the PDGA rules is allowed, provided of course, that the action done by the player is not considered "a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play". (This, of course, is cheating!)

Other Comments: Many members of the committee have actually tried to hold on to some object behind their lie, while leaning forward to throw or putt. In our opinion this action makes the ensuing throw/putt MORE difficult to accomplish.

What's the problem here? This all seems fairly cut and dry. Holding onto something behind your lie is not prohibited by the rules. Would people be considered "something?" Yes. How could they not? Therefore, holding onto people behind your lie is not prohibited by the rules.

wsfaplau
Jan 24 2011, 04:35 PM
Mike,

Oh, and rejoin the PDGA so I can use my newfound putting awesomeness to make some major coin. ;)

Uh Ray, I hate to be the one to break it to you but even with your clever new putting strategy there just isn't a way for anyone to make major coin in Disc Golf

bruce_brakel
Jan 24 2011, 04:36 PM
Your caddy can support you if he is less than 1/2 inch thick.

veganray
Jan 24 2011, 04:43 PM
Uh Ray, I hate to be the one to break it to you but even with your clever new putting strategy there just isn't a way for anyone to make major coin in Disc Golf

Thus the wink. I shouldn't have expected a Tarheel to get that nuance.

veganray
Jan 24 2011, 04:47 PM
What's the problem here? This all seems fairly cut and dry. Holding onto something behind your lie is not prohibited by the rules. Would people be considered "something?" Yes. How could they not? Therefore, holding onto people behind your lie is not prohibited by the rules.

It is not correct that it is permitted to hold onto any 'something' behind your lie. I posit that other people are included in the list of things that you cannot hold onto.

DShelton
Jan 24 2011, 06:47 PM
Your action is a willful circumvention of 803.01A �play the course as you find it� and the penalty is DQ under 804.05A(3). If you let anyone physically support you, to aid your shot, you are playing the course differently from how you found it, just the same as if you had planted a new tree behind your stance.

I'm interpreting this as you can not physically and permanently change the course, such as cutting down trees, removing weeds or moving in place equipment like picnic tables.

And 803.07C (interference) should give a two-stroke penalty � for altering your flight � to any player who physically supports your shot.

In order to alter the flight of a disc, it must be flying and it isn't flying until it has left the hand of the thrower and is flying through the air under it's own momentum.

august
Jan 25 2011, 08:21 AM
From the Rules Q&A:


What's the problem here? This all seems fairly cut and dry. Holding onto something behind your lie is not prohibited by the rules. Would people be considered "something?" Yes. How could they not? Therefore, holding onto people behind your lie is not prohibited by the rules.

Sorry - completely wrong. You cannot gather rocks, sticks, or people and place them strategically in order to increase the quality or stability of your stance. This constitutes use of an artificial device that may assist in making a throw. As has already been pointed out (and perhaps ignored), the cited Q & A speaks to course objects, specifically trees, which are in a fixed position and can be held onto so long as they are behind your lie.

amj1075
Jan 25 2011, 11:53 AM
I feel that we should not be able to hold onto anything for any reason for any type of throw/putt. If your shot puts you in a bad place you can either play it as it lies or take the relief rule with a penalty. TD's may/should make the casual relief rule(without penalty) on a per hole basis for safety reasons. I have on several occasions had to take the penalty and take relief from a lie that was from terrible shot or kicks that I was unable to get to it or I felt I was in danger of causing injury. So I took full responsibility for my poor throw and I feel I acted accordingly to the rules of play.

pterodactyl
Jan 25 2011, 12:50 PM
What if your human helper is "holding on to you" as you throw? You know, like grabbing a belt loop/belt or some human body part. Is that legal?

veganray
Jan 25 2011, 01:04 PM
Great thinking, ptero! If I were to wear a shirt with sufficiently long sleeves, I could accomplish my 9'2" drop-in without the use of either an unbelievably long-armed "helper" or a chain of them. A normal-sized "helper" could grasp my absurdly-long sleeve behind my lie, I could lay out & dunk, and then he could reel me back in so I could establish balance behind my lie before advancing. That would also silence the naysayers who blabber stuff like:
I suspect your chain of arm linked supporters might be judged "subverting the rules" and disallowed.

All hail the Chuck Kennedy rule book & its abolition of short putting!

cgkdisc
Jan 25 2011, 01:27 PM
Your efforts to characterize this as my rules are sad indeed. I'd say the excessively long sleeves would fall under the artificial device extending the player's lever, albeit a "stretch." I would think a long, narrow towel attached to a player's bag which is nicely centered on their back would be more effective (and maybe more legal) than the long sleeve thing.

august
Jan 25 2011, 02:04 PM
I'd say the excessively long sleeves would fall under the artificial device extending the player's lever, albeit a "stretch." I would think a long, narrow towel attached to a player's bag which is nicely centered on their back would be more effective (and maybe more legal) than the long sleeve thing.

There's no use of a lever in your description since the player is still throwing the disc with the other, un-levered hand. Additional, a lever has to be made of rigid material for it to work as a lever. Have you ever tried to open a can of paint with a shirt sleeve? The sleeve and the towel in your description are being used in exactly the same way - as a tether to keep the player from falling to the ground.

Neither is legal since both involve use of an artificial device to aid in making a throw.

veganray
Jan 25 2011, 02:04 PM
Your efforts to characterize this as my rules are sad indeed. I'd say the excessively long sleeves would fall under the artificial device extending the player's lever, albeit a "stretch." I would think a long, narrow towel attached to a player's bag which is nicely centered on their back would be more effective (and maybe more legal) than the long sleeve thing.

I'm sorry to make you sad, Chuck, but since you're the one 1) starting the debate with the clever & provocative post #3, 2) vociferously defending the flawed "interpretation", and 3) proffering numerous rulings as to what is & isn't allowed (including the curious "more legal" - isn't something either legal or not? - see quote above), I can't attribute the ownership of this "rule" to anyone else.

Why so glum? I've said several times that I LOVE the rule. You should be basking in the glory of your improved code; it sure beats the heck outta SnapChing!

Hoser
Jan 25 2011, 04:20 PM
Re Post #45:


RIGHT: You mustn�t change the course as you find it. In addition to 803.01A�s instruction to play the course as you find it, 804.05/CM3.3B(4) prohibits damage to plant life and 803.05A prohibits moving anything (specifically picnic tables) that�s not listed as a casual obstacle under 803.05B.


WRONG (maybe): There are ways to �consciously alter the course of a thrown disc� before or at the instant of release.


� Support the thrower as he throws, enabling him to throw differently.

� Tackle the thrower as he throws.

� Trip the thrower in his run-up (and he throws while he�s falling down).

� Aid, or restrict, the thrower�s arm with your own strength as he lets fly.

� Yell �Gotcha!� during the player�s forward swing.


Each of these interferences consciously alters the course of the thrown disc. If you�re the thrower in any of those situations, you know your flight has been altered and you know that the other person consciously made it happen.

DShelton, it�s true that players usually apply 803.07C to discs already in flight -- maybe because the examples in 803.07A and B are about discs already released. Yet the RC chose the exact language in 803.07C and that language makes no distinction between alterations that are caused before or at or after the release.

Is it reasonable to think the RC meant 803.07C to apply only after release? Maybe so . . . just as it�s reasonable to think that the RC didn�t mean to spell �caddy� two different ways in the same sentence in CM 3.5C. Or to think that the RC didn�t mean, in the 1997 and 2002 and 2006 and 2011 glossaries, for �practice throw� to incur penalty under 804.02A(2), a subrule that never has existed. Or to think that the RC did mean for 803.04D and the similar clause in 803.05A to mean the same thing, although their different wording can differently affect your stance.

But it�s also reasonable for you and me and every other disc golfer to be able to apply each rule�s exact words on the field of play without needing to wonder, �What the heck did the RC mean this rule to say?� It is reasonable for us to expect the RC to write rules that mean what they say. Because, at any tournament, a maximum of only three players at a time are going to have Chuck available to Swami the rules.

DShelton
Jan 25 2011, 06:07 PM
Re Post #45:
WRONG (maybe): There are ways to �consciously alter the course of a thrown disc� before or at the instant of release.


� Support the thrower as he throws, enabling him to throw differently.

� Tackle the thrower as he throws.

� Trip the thrower in his run-up (and he throws while he�s falling down).

� Aid, or restrict, the thrower�s arm with your own strength as he lets fly.

� Yell �Gotcha!� during the player�s forward swing.

Definition of thrown :Propel (something) with force through the air by a movement of the arm and hand.

The disc is not in the air in any of the above examples. The support in #1 may change the trajectory of the disc, but it is not affecting a thrown disc. The other four are covered under courtesy violations.

wsfaplau
Jan 25 2011, 11:31 PM
So if they are all courtesy violations it means by rule you get to do one of these each round and only incur a warning.

So in a tight match on the final tee you can yell "Gotcha" to intentionally disrupt your opponent's throw and all that happens is you get a courtesy warning? The same penalty as littering?

Ummmm, I don't think so.

lockhartkent
Feb 03 2011, 10:07 AM
So I guess that this question sparked some good rule discussion. I understand the not using a person argument. But back to my original question about a tree for support, it is ok to use one as long as not moving anything in the line of play? Correct?

cgkdisc
Feb 03 2011, 10:35 AM
There's no controversy over using a non-moving tree trunk or other stationary obstacle behind the lie for support whether it's on the line of play or not. The question whether a person can be used is in front of the RC for a ruling.

DShelton
Feb 03 2011, 08:09 PM
So if they are all courtesy violations it means by rule you get to do one of these each round and only incur a warning.

So in a tight match on the final tee you can yell "Gotcha" to intentionally disrupt your opponent's throw and all that happens is you get a courtesy warning? The same penalty as littering?

Ummmm, I don't think so.

Players should take care not to produce any distracting noises or any potential visual distractions for other players who are throwing. Examples of discourteous actions are: shouting, cursing, freestyling, slapping course equipment, throwing out of turn, throwing or kicking golf bags, throwing minis, and advancing on the fairway beyond the away player. Shouting at an appropriate time to warn someone in danger of being struck by a disc is not a violation of courtesy. Emphasis added by me.

Of course you will probably be watched very closely after a stunt like that and be given courtesy violation after courtesy violation until you hole out. Also the next time you play against them they'll find a way to warn you right off the bat and ding you every chance they get.