The rule for what you could move to obtain relief from loose debris used to be worded as things that are "dead and unattached". 803.01 now say that you can get relief from, as well as other things, "broken branches no longer connected to a tree".

Would this include a branch that has fallen from its native location and is now entangled in live growth of a secondary bush or tree?

There would be no way to remove said branch without greatly disturbing the new location.

The rule for what you could move to obtain relief from loose debris used to be worded as things that are "dead and unattached". 803.01 now say that you can get relief from, as well as other things, "broken branches no longer connected to a tree".

Would this include a branch that has fallen from its native location and is now entangled in live growth of a secondary bush or tree?

There would be no way to remove said branch without greatly disturbing the new location.

Very good question. I want to hear the response to this. I can see both sides.

Note as part of the rule that if it's unreasonable to move a casual object, you may move your lie back on the LOP to avoid it. So I think it's a judgment call whether moving a legit casual object tangled in living material would be so disruptive that it would be more appropriate to move back.

In addition to being no longer connected the branch also has to be on or behind your lie. Furthermore, you would have to move it without moving the bush it is tangled in, which does not sound possible in your scenario.

In addition to being no longer connected the branch also has to be on or behind your lie. Furthermore, you would have to move it without moving the bush it is tangled in, which does not sound possible in your scenario.

I don't think that the rule implies you can't accidentally move parts of a living bush. If you move it a little but it springs back in the process of moving a dead branch and it's back in it's original position when you take your stance to throw it seems like that would be fine.

This conversation about the broken branch in the living bush feels strained and off balance.

The PDGA�s philosophy of �play the course as you find it� (800.01) works well for permanent features of the course but creates awkward situations regarding non-permanent features. A better philosophy would be PLAY THE COURSE AS IT WAS DESIGNED. In other words, respect the skill challenge that the course designers created vis-�-vis the position of tees, targets, and permanent features of the field of play; and assume that this design never is improved by adding unattached (capricious) stuff. Allow and encourage each player to remove unattached stuff, no matter when it got there or how it influences any lie, stance, runup, throwing motion, follow-through, flight path or strategy. Let each player always pick up trash and debris, untangle chains, and maintain the course as the designers meant us to play it. If a broken branch falls into a living bush, let anyone, anytime, remove the branch from the field of play and try to restore the bush to the way it grew.

The PDGA has tweaked disc golf�s obstacle rules for decades yet never has achieved a rule that really feels comfortable or reasonable when you encounter debris. In my opinion, the game would play best if the obstacle rule helped everyone enjoy the skill challenge that welcomed the first disc golfers who ever stepped onto the course. It�s easy to write such an obstacle rule: just make no rule that governs stuff that isn�t attached to the ground.