eupher61
Aug 08 2011, 02:19 AM
There's a question that bugs me. I can't repeat it verbatim, but it's basically this.

A concrete trash can is called part of the course by the TD. A player's disc lands in front of it (side toward the basket) in such a place that she can't take a legal stance. There's also a trash truck in the way, between her disc's lie and the basket. What can she do?
803.05A says she can't take relief from the can, and B says she can ask to have the truck moved.
A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: With the exception of casual obstacles to a stance as described in 803.05 B, a player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc), which is considered part of the course. A player is allowed to request that other people remove themselves and/or their belongings from the player's stance or line of play. A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.

B. Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are in the stance or run-up area: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director).

But, 803.04E says she CAN move the stance to behind a large solid obstacle.

E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters
directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately
behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of
803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

Since I can't access the actual test after taking it, my faulty memory may cause inaccuracies, but I looked at the question a long time before answering it. I got it right, but I'm still not sure why it was right. The two rules seem contradictory. Maybe a concrete trash can isn't a "large solid obstacle"? What is, then? And, since it was announced as part of the course by the TD... I don't remember the question saying the TD announced it was eligible for relief as in 803.04E.

thanks.

bruce_brakel
Aug 08 2011, 09:02 AM
That question is not on every version of the test.

I would think you can ask that the truck be moved if it showed up during the round and is on the course.

I would also think that you can take your stance behind the can but not move the can.

If the correct answer was that you could not go behind the can as a large solid obstacle, maybe the rules author was thinking the can was hollow, as opposed to solid, and therefore you had to take a stance inside the can. I remember there being discussion of this under a prior version of the test.

krupicka
Aug 08 2011, 09:18 AM
A garbage can must be considered a solid obstacle, since the bottom of the can should not be considered a playing surface.

johnrock
Aug 08 2011, 01:13 PM
That question is not on every version of the test.

I would think you can ask that the truck be moved if it showed up during the round and is on the course.

I would also think that you can take your stance behind the can but not move the can.

If the correct answer was that you could not go behind the can as a large solid obstacle, maybe the rules author was thinking the can was hollow, as opposed to solid, and therefore you had to take a stance inside the can. I remember there being discussion of this under a prior version of the test.

That question was on my test. My answer was the same as Bruce's. I got it correct.

eupher61
Aug 09 2011, 01:01 AM
The answer, best I remember, was ask that the truck be moved and take the stance behind the can. I know I got it right.

Am I right in reading that this as a glaring contradiction here? One rule says take the stance behind, one says she can't.

I'm getting a headache....:confused:

lissyssil
Aug 11 2011, 02:27 PM
More fuel to the fire, can I take a stance on top of the garbage can using the rule of verticality?

cgkdisc
Aug 11 2011, 02:35 PM
No. Only on surfaces one might expect to normally walk on unless the TD calls it a surface such as sturdy picnic tables. Even then, you have to land on them to stand on them.

There is no general "rule of verticality." It's specific to relocating a lie within one meter of OB.

JenniferB
Aug 12 2011, 01:43 AM
The answer, best I remember, was ask that the truck be moved and take the stance behind the can. I know I got it right.

Am I right in reading that this as a glaring contradiction here? One rule says take the stance behind, one says she can't.

I'm getting a headache....:confused:

I don't know why you think the rules are in contradiction, or that one of the rules says she can't take her stance behing the trashcan. Taking the stance there is not a matter of taking relief. Instead of marking the lie and taking the stance in front of the trashcan, she has the option of playing the disc as the marker. Since that would have her playing inside the solid obstacle that is part of the course, she takes her stance behind the obstacle. That's not taking relief any more than taking the stance behind the disc (rather than marking it) is taking relief.

What's more, Chuck insists that you can place your minibehind the obstacle and take your stance behind it, even reusing the dis that landed in front of the obstacle. Pretty much, what Chuck says goes when it comes to ratings and rules, so I'd take it to the bank if I were you.

cgkdisc
Aug 12 2011, 08:50 AM
What's more, Chuck insists that you can place your minibehind the obstacle and take your stance behind it, even reusing the dis that landed in front of the obstacle.
After discussing rule 803.04E regarding solid object relief with the RC, it's clear the obstacle itself is supposed to be the "marker" per the current wording in the rule, although placing a mini on the line of play behind it wouldn't be inappropriate to better identify the LOP. Once the disc on the ground in front of the obstacle is shown to be close enough that relief will needed to take a stance, it can be picked up and thrown again should the player choose to do so.

eupher61
Aug 13 2011, 12:29 AM
My point, 803.05A says NO RELIEF from park equipment such as trash cans, if they are called part of the course.

I'd forgetten that the test question dealt with penalty stroke or not, also. So, there's another part of my confusion.

Or, did I misread the question to begin with? In that specific question, is the trash can given casual status, or part of the course status? The trash truck was never part of my concern.

I wish I could see my actual test again.

cgkdisc
Aug 13 2011, 02:50 AM
My point, 803.05A says NO RELIEF from park equipment such as trash cans, if they are called part of the course.
You don't get general relief like the other obstacles mentioned in 803.05A but you do get specific relief per 803.04E IF your disc happens to be directly in front of the obstacle and you can't take a stance.

bruce_brakel
Aug 13 2011, 10:42 AM
I think Chuck's interpretation is correct. After re-reading the rules you quoted, I can see the contradiction. Somewhere in all that verbiage is a general rule and many exceptions and maybe exceptions to the exceptions. That relationship, that this is the general rule and these are the exceptions, is not always clear to all readers.

eupher61
Aug 13 2011, 01:11 PM
Chuck, and Bruce, thanks.

It almost makes sense now. It's not a logical sense, but at least I understand the distinction. Something needs to be rewritten to be clearer. I hope I'm not the only one who has been confused by this.

eupher61
Aug 13 2011, 01:14 PM
Chuck, and Bruce, thanks.

It almost makes sense now. It's not a logical sense, but at least I understand the distinction. Something needs to be rewritten to be clearer. I hope I'm not the only one who has been confused by this.

I'm certainly not one who favors every single, potential situation being covered by a specific rule, either. The "spirit of the rule" should hold forth, without controversy. And, a TD or official who makes a call using "the spirit of the rule" shouldn't have to put up with calls upon his character, as I've seen done time and time again. Almost always, by people who don't ever take the time to volunteer to be an official or TD.

bruce_brakel
Aug 14 2011, 10:32 AM
I think I understand a sense in which the two rules are not contradictory. The first rule you quoted is talking about when you can take relief from the location where the rules would have you take your stance. The second rule you quoted is talking about where you take your stance. So it is not offering relief, but defining the location of the stance. It is a lawyerly distinction, but that rule may have been written by a lawyer.

chappyfade
Aug 17 2011, 12:38 AM
I think I understand a sense in which the two rules are not contradictory. The first rule you quoted is talking about when you can take relief from the location where the rules would have you take your stance. The second rule you quoted is talking about where you take your stance. So it is not offering relief, but defining the location of the stance. It is a lawyerly distinction, but that rule may have been written by a lawyer.

I bet it wasn't written by a lawyer. The only lawyer I know of that's ever been on the committee is Mark Ellis, and I think he was off the committee by the time that rule was in its current form. But I could be wrong (and wouldn't be surprised if I am).