When Jim started this thought on another thread I thought it might get some action so I started a new thread for it.

Some of my favorite non-rules rules (i.e. rules that do not exist!).

-My all time favorite (as many of you know) (and maybe this is more of a misinterpretation thing than a non rule but I couldn't resist) is how some (many) players feel they have the width of the mini to put a supporting point behind when really the supporting point must be on the lop through the CENTER of the mini.

-How about the falling putt rule where some think you are not allowed to 'pass your mini (from within 30') until after the disc comes to rest'! I think this may have actually have been a rule at one time but I'm not sure (CG?).

-A recent change (1997) to the Casual Relief still leaves some players thinking that casual relief is 'no closer' which allows left and right relief when we all know (here on DISCussion) that Casual Relief is granted on a lop (straight back only).

...


Others?

-Scott

Another one I just thought of.
'The 30 second rule does not apply on the drive. You have 2 (or was it 3?) minutes when it's your turn on the tee box.'

Backing into a bush to get a better throw is OK.

Brian, is Paul still doing that?

I see many people doing that. I want to say something when I see it, but it is just not worth the hassle afterwards.

Scott wrote
[[-How about the falling putt rule where some think you are not allowed to 'pass your mini (from within 30') until after the disc comes to rest'! I think this may have actually have been a rule at one time but I'm not sure (CG?). ]]


RULE: 803.03
C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the mini marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is not allowed. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.


Am I missing something, Scott?

Rick,

I think what DGRZ #002 is referring to is that the only prerequisite for advancement is "The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole." The position of the putted disc is irrelevant. I could putt from 9.9m into a strong headwind, show balance, then sprint forward and watch my disc go in the basket (or, more than likely, float over the basket) and suffer no penalty.

DGRZ #001
"Unsteady" Bill Burns

The rule dosn't say anything about the disc having to be at rest.

Rick,
You quoted the rule correctly. What Scott was referring to was the popular misconception that if the disc was already in the bucket - it would be considered complete - and if you were off balance - you could then fall forward.

Scott - you are correct in that this has been, and continues to be a misconception. It was never part of the rule to my knowledge. Complete balance must be demostrated.

How about those that bend over and grab their marker as they are stepping over their marker? Is that considered athletic agility or balance. (Is a tightrope walker showing complete balance while he is walking the tightrope) I would consider them to be demonstrating incredible balance. But I guess they're not really ever in complete balance. I guess what I'm trying to ask is; What the heck is complete balance?

I was told that if you can balance a level on your head, then you are level headed! jm

Cmon Randy - is this a real question? Or are you just trolling? Demonstrate balance - as in - show that you are not falling forward, or how about, put both feet on the ground, or..... make up your own. Most of the time it's pretty obvious if someone is in control - if it's not - then make em putt again!! http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Hi Craig. Its a real question. Showing complete control of balance before advancing to the hole. Is the intent of the rule to make sure players are in control or is the intent to keep players from getting an advantage by lunging toward the basket?
If it is the latter, then why is balance mentioned. If a player putts from behind their mark, would it matter if they fell down and rolled down a hill, bumping their head on the basket? The rule should be that the putter must leave the hand while both feet are behind the mark.Would that work? I know it couldn't be that simple.

For one thing, it's not "both feet", it's "all supporting points". Of course your supporting point can be your knee, hand, buttcheek, or your forehead if you so desire.

But to get back to your point. Even if both fe... err... all supporting points are behind the line, players (especially tall players) could gain an advantage by leaning forward and releasing just before falling. IMO, the intent of the rule is to prevent that.

I used to think that running water and ponds were always OB. Not so.

If you hurled into the deep could you tread water over the disc and toss from there? There doesn't seem to be any rule against levitating above your lie.

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

Way to go Randy, start a whole other thread right in the middle of this one.

Though "full control of balance" isn't really that hard to figure (especially when you give benefit of the doubt to the thrower, as we nicey-nicey frisbee golfers always tend to do), it *is* a subjective measure. And that subjectivity is *one* of the reasons to get rid of the falling putt rule altogether. As you (tried to) say, as long as the supporting point(s) are in contact behind the mini at the time of release (which is already covered by the Stance rule), why do we need anything else? I whole-heartedly agree with you.

And don't give me that tall-person crap (Jim). Short people have a huge advantage over me (a taller guy) whenever we have to throw under tree limbs. And numerous other stupid examples as to why body-size is a non-argument.

rodney

Oh wait, Jim, you didn't say you agreed, you just said you think that was the intent. Sorry.

rodney

Lunging putts are ugly. If you are worried about ambiguity, I guess you could require having supporting points behind the mini until you pick it up.

I think it would be cool watching tall people fall towards the basket from behind their mark. In fact, I start laughing each time I imagine Stokely releasing a putt as he is falling forward with both feet behind his mark. I don't think he would do it more than once.

Oh.... Since Jim wants to be serious. Of course, the supporting points still goes. My definition is concerning the feet at time of release. I don't care if one foot is above your head or your knee is in your crotch.

Oh...Rodney, what I said so eloquently was, "The rule should be that the putter must leave the hand while both feet are behind the mark".

I didn't have to try very hard to say that. It just kinda popped out.

I've posted this in the past but it seems relevant here. You can have one foot way forward of your mini toward the basket and your other one properly behind the mini. Thrust backwards with your forward foot and just after it leaves the ground, release your putt. Assuming you practice this so you don't fall down (it can be done while retaining balance consistently, try it), this is apparently a legal putt that is particularly effective when you want to get as close as possible in high wind. You kind of look like Ralph Macchio doing the "Crane" move.

Thank you. I can't wait to do that at National Doubles.

Bill wrote: [[The position of the putted disc is irrelevant.]]
Craig wrote: [[if the disc was already in the bucket - it would be considered
complete - and if you were off balance - you could then fall forward]]

Craig, It seems to me that the rules don't clarify this point. If you have "holed out" when your disc comes to rest within the entrapment device, then losing balance after that fact should not matter because the hole is finished. I guess sneaky players could hide their lack of balance as a "jump and sprint" toward the basket to retrieve their disc?

Bill, I guess you are technically correct. I think the rule could use some clarification. Such as "the supporting point behind the marker cannot be lifted from the playing surface until the disc comes to rest, and control of balance must be shown until the disc comes to rest (with the exception that you must move out of the way if a disc in play, especially your own, may strike you."

Rick,

You are slightly wrong. You haven't holed out until you remove your disc. Thus you would have to maintain your balance before you go to remove that disc.

Uh-oh. There is a thread that has gone into great detail on this subject of falling putts. I suggest that those interested in discussing it reactivate it, instead of just saying the same things all over again.

Without a doubt the foot fault is the most wide spread abused and misunderstood rule. Whether it's running up and stepping on your mini, way short of it, to the left, to the right, or clear over it, this rule seems to exist just as an incentive to step "somewhere near your mini". As in "if I see you really tried to play your lie correctly, then I won't call you."

Of course, this leads us dangerously close to that other old thread of eliminating run ups.

For the record, I favor doing away with the falling putt rule (read other thread for reasons), and calling foot faults (which in essense might eliminate the run up for those people unable to land on their lie before throwing). I don't know if it would be worth the effort to do either of these things, but if it made the game less wishy washy, I say let's try it.

After 1 year of the speed of play rule, I can say that it is not a good thing, unless the group has only courtious people that really know the rule. If everyone is not in full knowledge of it, it can turn into a frustrating mess for the one guy who does comprehend it, especially in a 5 some! I know it's meant to save time, but it just makes the courtesy rules more variable, and brings human error into something where it didn't exist before.

Has it been written out in it's entirity anywhere?

Hey Nick, I don't want to go back and read. I want to talk about it.

I like my "keep your feet behind the mark on putts" instead of doing away with falling putts. I would be one of the best at doing a broad jump at the basket and slam duking putts before I hit the ground but I think it would be rediculous.

I think a player should be given up to 3' on the holy line behind their mark on run-ups.

I agree with you on the speed of play rule. It's great if everyone's main concern is the other players' concentration, but everyone hanging back until it's their turn is safe. But....players trying to determine who is out drives me out of my mind.

Rodney, you can always take a knee to get under a branch. What can Houck do with a shrub in his face? http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/wink.gif

Is this going to be another "two-meter" thread?

As Stimpson J. Cat would say, JOY!

"What can Houck do with a shrub in his face?"

He could redesign the hole. He could tell you a story about some interesting shrubbery trivia. He could.....uhhh I can't top that last one.

Rhett said:
>What can Houck do with a shrub in his face?

Blend in really really well?

I'm just glad you said "shrub". Other terms would have evoked entirely different answers. Steadyyyyy. Steadyyyyyyyyyyyy.

rodney

Randy, one problem with the message board medium is that I can't tell when you're serious and when you're just fooling. I know that it's 99% the latter, but you seem serious here.

The problem with "keep your feet behind the mark on putts" as you put it, is that it is not concise enough to be a real rule. Specifically, "behind" must be clarified to mean "on the line of play" or "farther away than the mini" or "in contact with the ground" or whatever your intent is.

If you're just fooling, nevermind.

rodney

Perhaps a little "falling putt" history is in order.

The development of this rule (as I understand it) was a direct result of a particular talent developed by Dan "Stork" Roddick, as far back as the 1974 AFDO - where the targets were actually ground baskets. Being a tall, lanky guy, Stork developed a sort of lunging, "slam dunk" type putt to hole out on these early ground baskets. A lot of other players probably felt at a great disadvantage, not being able to reach the target in this way. I'm not sure exactly when the rule was introduced, but like many of our rules, was in reaction to a seemingly "unfair" condition being exploited by the "not so vertically challenged".

So in essence Randy, the rule is not for one or the other, but both - to show balance or control, AND to prevent unfair advantage. Personally I see the END intent to be the unfair advantage, and the MEANS is to show control. The leeway to control comes in saying if you can't maintain control, then you have to do it behind the mark (fall down all you want - so long as it's behind the mini http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif ).

I agree Craig. I still think the simplest solution is to say (along with the standard rules of stance...Rodney) the disc must leave ones hand while both feet are behind the mark. As long as the stance rules are adhered to, I don't think it should matter what you do with your anatomy. Within 10 meters, adhere to the stance rules, and both feet must be no closer to the basket from your mark at time of release. Falling would be allowed. It would hurt, but it would be allowed.

SO you don�t want to go back and read�ok, then don�t complain about the length of posts that have to rehash old arguments, ok?

Randy, at face value it does not appear that you really do agree with Craig. I�m not saying that I disagree, I�m just trying to understand specifically what you are getting at.

I am well versed in the history of the falling putt rule. One thing we need to put a end to here is the mistaken idea that any of us is talking about allowing people to run up, leap from their lie and slam dunk the disc (though that is sort of a cool idea). If as with other shots you must have one supporting point on your lie and none closer than the back of your mini when you release the disc, then this isn�t possible.

Anything that is not allowed now and changes to being allowed will seem unusual at first, right? The question of it being an unfair advantage for taller players is mute IMO. Different physical attributes are advantages or disadvantages regardless of whether you make rules to negate them.

I can live with the rule as it is. The only reason I would support dropping it would be to make the rules more consistent from tee pad to putt out. The next step, if we follow the logic of the falling putt, is to legislate that trick shots are illegal because they look funny, or that players have to release through a certain strike zone so as not to give an unfair advantage to the tall or short players, or that you have to show control after every shot. How boring our sport would become if people were no longer allowed, by the rules, to flop down in the mud after a tee shot�. http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

I'm being anal again, but it needs to be supporting points, not feet. I can put one toe on the LOP behind the mini, then get down on my knees with my knees on the ground in front of the mini and support my weight on my left hand, reach up with my right hand, stretch up, and drop in an 8' putt while my feet stay behind the mini.

Chuck's 'Crane' example is interesting, but I think my example would be more of a violation of the intent of putting.

Randy, I had a putt in league Saturday where my forwardmost point of contact was the middle finger of my left hand. (I was in the midst of some shrubbery and had to go to the kneeling leaning stance card.)

I'm anal. Quit saying feet!

DGRZ#003

huh huh...he say "Shrubbery" and "Knee!"

Nevermind my example, I just re-read Randy's post about the other stance rules.

Why do you want to allow a falling putt?

How do I get a DGRZ number?

Jeez, what a bunch of idiots. (me too, me too)

I AGREE WITH STANCE RULES. I KNOW ALL ABOUT SUPPORTING POINTS. (Although they can be debated. If you are laying flay on the ground could the tip of your middle finger be as much a supporting point as the rest of your body?) I'm trolling.

I am simply saying, "Leaving everthing as is, if neither of your feet (I don't care what you do with the rest of your anatomy!) can go closer to the basket than your mark, until after the disc is released, BALANCE and CONTROL would be non-issues.
There would be no advantages or disadvantaged and the arguments would all be about the same stinking thing. Did you release before your foot, or feet crossed the barrier. I THINK I would rather argue about that, than all the crack addict issues I see and hear concerning falling putts.

But it's OK. It doesn't have to be my way.

I hope this visual explains it all. Imagine a player standing on one foot. (the players foot is the only part of his anatomy touching the playing surface and it is meeting every rule requirement) Now imagine the movie "The Matrix". The player raises his foot straight up over his head, directly over his other foot. (neither foot is closer to the target than his mark and both are as close to the basket as allowed by the rules) Now... The player extends his body, parallel to the ground, towards the basket and reaches out his hand as far as he can while holding a putter. That is the closest anyone could ever get their putter to a target while it is still in their hand. Now...the player flicks his wrist and away goes the putter. Now...the players feet, arms, legs, teeth, moles, [*****], ears, hair, and bad breath can go anywhere, in every direction known to science.

Thank you.

But Randy, that would make my perfectly legal Karate Kid Crane Stance Turbo Putt illegal!

(For the visually challenged: right foot on the mark, toe pointing to basket; left knee raised belly high with left foot forward of the mark but off the ground; left hand raised higher than head; right hand holding turbo above right shoulder slightly behind head)

kee-yi!

Jim, you are, indeed, very close to receiving one.

Randy, what you describe is a generally accepted term. It's called a "Falling Putt". You are saying,"Allow falling putts." It's not some earhtshaking revelation, not even a mildly interesting twist. Just a plain old falling putt. Get it?

I agree with your thinking by the way.

Not entirely true Oh Great One. Since you might be little more inclined to read Chuck Kennedy:

I've posted this in the past but it seems relevant here. You can have one foot way forward of your mini toward the basket and your other one properly behind the mini. Thrust backwards with your forward foot and just after it leaves the ground, release your putt. Assuming you practice this so you don't fall down (it can be done while retaining balance consistently, try it), this is apparently a legal putt that is particularly effective when you want to get as close as possible in high wind. You kind of look like Ralph Macchio doing the "Crane" move.

There is a revolutionary difference in what I am saying and the current rule. It's just that what I'm saying is simple. Don't start with me Kight.

http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

One more time. If the disc had to leave a players hand before either foot crossed the plane, there could b eno advantage gained by any bodily action. A player could run and jump, but the disc would have to leave their hand before their feet crossed the plane. I think bodily injury would take care of the rest.

I see Wimm. That makes your argument even sillier. How many disc golfers do you know that jump in the air and then release the disc? The official lie is ambiguous enough in disc golf, this feet thing would do nothing to further define it. A falling putt is a falling putt, whether your feet are off the ground behind your lie or not. It's the follow through that is basically illegal inside 10 meters. You seem to be talking about redefining our stance rule.

What is the rule on driving off the pad? What is the rule for putting inside of 10 meters? There is a difference. The inside 10 meter rule was to prevent players from using the outside of 10 meters rule when they were inside 10 meters. Balance and control and other gibberish should have nothing to do with it. But it's still fun. No biggie.

Demonstration of balance, though mandated, is still subjective.

I think the ability to pick up a mini without dropping it, or advancing beyond the lie before doing so, should preclude any violation.

Thats what started me on this trip. There are players that think if they reach down and grab their mini, it makes their putt legal. I can pick mine up (and do) in the middle of a falling putt. Looks like I'm in total control.

ohhh...I'm glad Rhett knows how to read.

"But Randy, that would make my perfectly legal Karate Kid Crane Stance Turbo Putt illegal!"

Thank you Rhett.

This really needs to be addressed. Randy and Rhetts's versions are both legal, but shouldn't be. Especially Rhett's. It cheapens the game.

Slayer, I'm practicing Chuck Kennedys idea. That sums up the problem with the current rule. I can't wait to do it at National Doubles. That will be hilarious.

Randy, tell us how your "Crane" test works out at National Doubles. I checked with the Rules meister himself, Carlton Howard, and he saw nothing that violates the putting rules as they are currently written.

He agrees that as long as the forward foot is completely off the ground before the putt is released, the "Crane" is legal assuming you show balance. BTW, I'm just the messenger. Credit for this move should properly be given to Matt Koerner who showed it to us while putting in gale force winds into a cone basket.

Better print out these messages to have handy when your group shouts, "No way!"

From Carlton Howard:
"I think it would be legal. Of course, that would depend on when the disc is released. I've seen a lot of golfers do similar things when teeing off (to throw from one extreme side of the tee pad) and they THINK that they've picked their foot off the ground prior to releasing the disc...but in many instances they did not."

I'll be sure and do it when I know my partner has me covered. I'm sure I'll start laughing in the middle of the putt.

Randy, have you ever ACTUALLY FALLEN after a successfull mini-snab? Or seen it happen?

Randy, have you ever ACTUALLY FALLEN after a successfull mini-snab?

A falling putt has nothing to do with falling. Its dang near impossible to talk about putting within 10 meters because the verbage is to far gone. Most people have experienced knee putts where there momentum caused them to put their hand down past the mark as their body tilted over the mark. Silly, silly rule. With my rule that would be legal. Sanding with one foot behind my mini and the other between my mini and the basket would be illegal. My rule is better. Yea! Rah! shish boom bah!

My rule needs to be improved. With the old rule you could put your feet behind the mark, lay down between the mark and the basket and putt. No good.

The new rule is: A player within 10 meters of the basket must adhere to stance rules. The disc must leave the players hand before either knee comes closer to the basket than players mark.
Laying down will not be an advantage. On a knee putt a player can fall face first and it will be legal.

Randy Wimm, you are a blithering idiot. You can't lay on the ground between your mini an the basket if you adhere to stance rules. Your rule was perfect in its original draft.

Randy: Quit giving Randy a hard time! He appears to have his hands full posting responses to his own posts. Or maybe his hands are full of grass and dirt because he is laying down with his toes behind his mini and still trying to putt.

(This one wasn't clear to me either! On second thought, Randy, go ahead and give Randy a hard time...he deserves it!)

Here are a few ideas on putting stance rules changes that I haven't seen discussed here yet:

1) Allow the player to take 3 giant steps from their mark and then proceed to putt from there within 5 seconds of their last giant step.

2) A player may take 3 putts from one mark. Must make 2 out of 3 for the putt to count.

3) A player may take as many putts as they want, but their eyes must be closed until the disc is released.

4) Tethered putters would be allowed. This would allow the player to attach their putter to a fishing pole and cast it out and reel it back into the basket. Each casting would count as a stroke.

5) Players would be allowed to bring a portable foot bridge with them. They then can set up the bridge at their mark and make the putt from the end of the bridge. There would be no limit to the size of the bridge, but the bridge must be carried by the player (no bridge caddy) and it must be carried by hand, it cannot be carted.

Any other non-rules?

Yeah, the rule that says you have to throw from the provided tpads. http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

Scott, I saw you cheat as well! jm

re: "Yeah, the rule that says you have to throw from the provided tpads".
Throw it over everybody's head from the Troll Bridge.

My point about the minis wasn't to clear the difference between falling putts and jumping putts, or comment directly on proper stance.

Rather, that what constitutes what is an "improperly" blanced stance/delivery is subjective, perhaps there are objectives to meet than can positively demonstrate proper balance. Standing still for a moment, also stepping to a support point behind the lie, THEN advancing seem to be generally accepted objectives.
It seems to me an out of balance body couldn't perform the mini-snab.
A positive negative testing. Not unbalanced, therefore blanced. IMhO.

Whatever you just said makes perfect sense to me.http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

Kembali

After you putt, you need to step back, put your right foot out, you put your left foot out, spin yourself around, and do the hoochie koochie, cause that's what it's all about!

Randy and John, your trolling is getting old.

For the record, because even in jest, I don't like being called a cheater....

John - from Randy I expect such words - you surprise me.

I was wearing cleats on a wet day at Veterans and I asked if it was OK to throw off the slippery tee pads. John, Randy, you both made it clear to me that I should do so and you had no problem with it. While you were so insistent that I should feel OK with it too, I still, after throwing off the tee pads for ?several? holes decided to throw on the pads anyway.

It is that guilt that you are teasing. The first time was a little fun, the second time got annoying and the third time, well...enough please.

Please show a bit of maturity and don't respond negatively to this post (my email is [email protected]). I would have emailed this intead of airing this dirty laundry on the net if John had an email address in his profile.

-Scott

PS I won no money during that round and if I did I would have donated it back to the Ice Bowl Fundraiser as I did later that day at ZBoaz.

Touchy, touchy, eh Scott. Randy is not mature. He is immature, which is the opposite of mature. We know you are not a cheater. Which is the opposite of cheater. We know you threw off the pads to eliminate any scrutiny. Which is by the way the opposite of non scrutiny. Anyone interested in the opposites of any words go to www.oppositeofthewordyouneeedtheoppositeof.com. (http://www.oppositeofthewordyouneeedtheoppositeof.com.) Its a great site.

That was immature, the opposite of

Anybody who posts humor on this site is mature. It takes genuine maturity to see the humor in things. Randy is one of the most mature people here. Only immature people need to be serious all the time.

Let me tell you what really hurts. Kelly and I once had a special relationship. I did damage to our relationship because of my immaturity. I think I finally understand the meaning of maturity. Kelly, could we get together for a cappucino?

Yes. Lets share. I love you still.

Scott, I Love You Man! May I have your last Bud Light? Oh, just for the record, I WAS TEASING YOU! Okay, Randy and I insisted that Scott should throw adjacent from the tee pads that WERE provided! There, I said it, it was our idea! Can't wait to golf with Scott again, and by the way, my email addy is there! jm

John, you are a troublemaker with a sweet disposition. Would you like to join us for a cappucino? Your naughtiness exites me.

i've always thought john was evil. randy's just his puppet. on hole eleven during nat'l doubles, john's up shot was going in the creek and he said some kind of crazy, evil curse and it stopped right on the edge. i'm begining to believe he may be resposible for all of my bad throws during alternating.
of relevance. what do you guy's think of this one. you've just thrown and your disc lands just inches but completely on the other side of a casual creek. can you pull back to the other side? you could take a legal straddle stance where your disc lays but the creek is clearly in the way of your run up if you needed one. would this be considered an obstacle to run up with relief available? the rule book states that you can move an obstacle to a run up but in this case you can't. well john might be able to.

Wow! With all that sticky sweetness, its amazing I was able to break free from the Karmic pull of Arlington to reach the safety of my Hill Country abode.

I would like to propose a Veteran's Park Only (or VPO, if you will) non-rule: On a putt which is rolling back down the hill you worked so hard to get up, if you can catch it, you can stop it. ARRGH!!!!

Thanks guys, Sunday's wind was brutal but Wolf was an insanely fun afternoon. http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Hey Paul, I don't know if its evil or devine but MyHero's luck is not natural. I'm as good as he is he just outlucks me 10 strokes a round.

Randy, I'd love to join you and Kelly for a capp! I'll just swing by Kelly's on my way home, and we'll meet you in Waco @ 6:30pm! Paul, that was no evil curse, i was just talking to one of my other personalities. You see, i have many! In regards to the creek you are talking about, the disc stayed on the basket side. It was a two finger roller, and if i remember correctly, it's awfully hard to roll one across water. The disc was suspended by roots and sticks, hanging over the creek's edge. Evil #1(Tim) had to bring it in 1 meter in order to gain a legal stance! I love you man! jm

Now that is cheating!

I'm sorry. That creek wasn't casual was it?

No that creek isn't casual, nor was the disc O.B. Did you know that Evil spelled backwards is LIVE? Live a little! jm

john, i wasn't questioning the legality of your throw at all. it was safe. i brought up two different situations. the second being hypothetical. wait, am i just reading into this? anyway i hope you liked those new holes on the south because there could be five more just like it next year. now can anyone answer my hypo question about the run up and a casual water?

Yo Scott, It's a good thing you started this thread to try and keep topics seperated...

Dang, yet another topic degrades into "Texas Chat". How many threads does a guy have to ignore? Stuff like "Carrolton Open" and "Texas States" makes it easy to remember that they aren't worth reading, but this thread used to be good!

Marty, maybe we need a few new main areas like "Texas Chat" and "Rest of Country Chat".

Kreke, Did I mention that I love you man! I really enjoyed playing w/ you and Mike, however next year, don't let Mike wear that loud DETROIT RED WINGS jersey. I thought that Team Evil's Kryptonite had not yet been exposed! How wrong was I. As for your hypo question, i have a hard time thinking hypothetically. Actually, I have a hard time thinking! jm

and of course the ever so popular--

I ain't got nobody to talk to, so let me think I'm important by posting on the message board thread.

More Non-Rule Rules:

Not A Rule 0.00: The members of your group have the authority to change the rules. A long as it's OK with the members of your group, you can ...

... tee off outside the tee box
... commit various stance violations
... fail to hole out on a "gimme"
... call it "holed out" when a disc fall out of a leaky basket
... take free relief from an OB lie or a disc more than two meters above the playing surface
... waive any rule you like


THE PRECEDING "RULE" IS NOT A RULE! The members of the group do NOT have the authority to bend the rules. One group cannot make rules unique to that group. Everybody plays by the same rules, and that's the rules!

Unless they're not.

My posts are getting through again; I feel important.

Rhett, I brought up a valid question. I was hoping someone could answer. Can you contribute? How about this, i'll meet you at a course half way and whomever loses can't post anymore. Side bets anyone? Jim, how dare we use this discussion board for exactly it's intent.

--oops double post

paul, to answer your hypothetical question where casual water interferes with the run up, but not the stance:
803.04 C (3) Obstacles to a run up: The player may move the obstacle. No other relief is provided.

Of course, it doesn't say how much time you get to move the obstacle. I'd say, get a shovel, and re-route the stream. http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

DGRZ #004

Let's see now, how was this discussion going?

"I didn't cheat..."
"mature/immature..."
"we broke up..."
"I love you..."
"no, I love you..."
"let's get a cap..."
"your his puppet..."
"ooooh, sticky sweet..."
"evil luck..."
"I'd *love* to have coffee..."

I guess I missed any questions about non-rules that might have been mixed in there.

I can contribute, Paul: It should be "whoever" not "whomever" in your sentence.

rhett, your not a stick in the mud, the stick must be stuck in your buttocks! relax, pull it out, so you won't be so full of yourself! have a nice day!

People from outside Texas should not get paranoid about being left out of the Texas cappucino group. They should not feel the need to attack that group just because they weren't invited for coffee. There are medications that can be taken for that. I wasn't invited for capucino in Texas either but I still love you Kelly, Randy, John Mark and even you Rhett because I made my own Cappucino and I feel good about myself.

That way it stays warmer, too.

Morgan,
Now 'dat was funny.

Next time you guys meet somewhere in west Texas (like El Paso), let me know, that's actually in riding range for me.

Back to non-rules:

The rule that says you have to stay on thread topic.

LMAO @ Morgan! Rhett, next time I'm in SoCal, would you join me for a cup of tea? jm

Rhett, that's twice you've singled out a group of friends. Why? Because we live in Texas? So what. Did you notice nobody attacked Californians? Rhett in SoCal. You still dodged the challenge. This is funny. Since you've got some sick infatuation with Texas why don't we settle this Texas style? You against me. I'll meet you this summer. We could play two rounds. The loser can no longer post. Don't mess with Texas.

Now that my testosterone levels are down. Jim, as the rule reads we are discriminating against what is an obstacle. We could move a large branch but because it's not possible to move a body of water your penalized. To me that rule is vague. I think you could read it two different ways.

Kreke, that post makes me proud to be a Texan.

Dayem Strate! http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Jim - That's at least twice now somebody has ripped-off my, "Now DAT wuz funny" line. Litigation is in the works. There ought to be a (non)rule......

paul, what could possibly be vague about "No other relief is provided"?

I am puzzled by a very early post about bushes. You must let branches lie as close to there natural state as possible. You can't just back up into and hold back branches.

I see this all the time and it really bugs me.

To Rett is So Cal: You just wish you were from Texas. We have the best players in the world. I am not talking about skills here. I am talking about people.

Pizza God: I'll give Tejas the state title, due to respect for my health.

The friendliest, most ettiquette observant golfers frequent El Dorado Park here on the Left Coast......

pizza god, what puzzles you? You've got it right. The player *must* take the stance that is least disruptive to his surroundings.

Technically, that means that if you can lay face down on the ground and reach one hand under the branches to place a support point behind your disc, you *must* do so. Good luck actually calling it or enforcing it in real life.

In practice, I'll stop somebody from backing into a bush, but if they come in from the side or from behind the lie, I won't nit-pick about "least disruptive".

rodney

Paul, what is your actual question again?

-Scott

Why does an attack on the Texas Connection have to be turned into an attack on Texas itself? I wasn't putting Texas down. I like Texas. Veterans rocks. It's just that the Texas Connection here seems to be obliterating all threads with idle [*****]-chat. I was kind of hoping that a "Texas Chat" area might be a place for all those posts to accumulate and be easily ignored by those not interested in finding out if everybody is going to be at (insert local course name here) at 2pm on Thursday.

I've been trying to take the advice offered by the Texas Connection last time I brought it up: if you don't like don't read it! Well, the number of threads dedicated to [*****]-chat just keep increasing so it is not so easy to determine.

And paulkrackhead, I've read your two posts several times and can't help but feel like I'm being challenged to a fist-fight, not a disc golf match. No I didn't attack youse guys 'cause yer from Texas. 15 to 45 conversations have between 10 and 30 new posts every time I check the board, primarily stuff about nothing by the same handful of people. About five of threads usually are [*****]-chat free. whatever....

What's puzzlin' you is just the nature of my game.

Here's the hypothetical question that paul asked:

what do you guy's think of this one. you've just thrown and your disc lands just inches but completely on the other side of a casual creek. can you pull back to
the other side? you could take a legal straddle stance where your disc lays but the creek is clearly in the way of your run up if you needed one. would this be considered an obstacle to run up with relief available?

And my reply:
803.04 C (3) Obstacles to a run up: The player may move the obstacle. No other relief is provided.

I see no possible way that this could be interpreted another way, but maybe I'm just slow.

Hey Rhett,
First off, this topic is not cause for intense scrutiny.
Secondly, the person who started this topic decided to crap all over it because he was being teased.
Thirdly, that persons attack on what he expects from me provoked what you call "Texas [*****] Chat".

I think it all went rather well.

How about some Zappa lyrics? Monty Python? Better yet, scan through this thread and read your great contributions to the advancement of disc golf. Heck, you can even post love letters to a long lost love. We don't care.

I care, but an unwritten rule prevents me from saying so...(insert appropriate face here).

I just thought of something,,

What if there were no Hypothetical Questions?????

http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://pdga.com/discus/clipart/sad.gif

Paulkrackhead? Trevor, how did you figure out Rhett's password? Rhett, a fist-fight? How did you read that into a challenge on the disc course? You own one of those shaking little chihuahua's don't you.

Whats up Texas! You guys in Texas sure talk alot about this and that here and there.Any time you want to play disc and not talk about come over to socal. Here in Cali we let the disc do the all the talking.

Hold on, I first wrote the reply to Pauls inquiry agreeing with Jim's interpretation. However, there might be soom room for discussion/interpretation here.

Obviuosly, if the disc, actually, if 'the lie', was IN the casual water, then 803.04C says relocate to.....lop...up to 5 meters... So assuming the 'other side' (lop back) of the creek is within 5 meters, and the player chooses to, the lie can be relocated out of the casual water and onto dry land where a better run up is likely.

Now, what if that same lie was right on the edge of the creek (basket side) where the mini actually stradles the creek water's edge (all right, a bit if a THFO scenerio but bear with me). Then I say 803.04C is applied again. Right? Yes.

Now what if the back edge of the mini is a bit closer to the basket. The question is how far away from the water's edge does the lie (or back edge of the mini) have to be before relocating to the other side, invoking 804.03C2, be no longer applicable? (assume creek's other side is within 5 meters).

There is nothing in the rules about a being able to obtain a legal stance as it pertains to casual relief. 804.03C2 simply states 'obstacles to stance or throwing motion'. If you are 7' tall and have a huge stance back from the lie which puts your back foot in the water from a lie 5' from the edge, then I think your lie can be relocated since the casual water IS 'an obstacle to the stance'!

So to answer my own question as long as the stance (any legal stance) puts that player into any part of the casual water, 804.03C2 is applicable.

So, if that sounds logical to the zealots that actually read and followed that logic, then Paul CAN relocate his lie to the other side if it is 'inches' from the water since his stance puts him (or could put him) in the casual water.

Comments?

-Scott
DGRZ #002

Interesting interpretation. I see at least 3 similar but distinctly different scenarios.

1. It's impossible to take a legal stance without putting at least one foot in the water.

2. It's possible to take a legal stance, but it would be off balance and awkward, and not the best possible stance for the throw (paul's scenario).

3. The player could easily take a legal stance, but doesn't have room for a runup, so he makes the pretense of wanting to take a stance with one foot stretched way back behind him so that it touches the water (Scott's scenario).

Number 1 is pretty cut & dry. He can move it behind the stream.
Number 3 to me seems like "a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play", therefore cheating and subject to disqualification.
Number 2, I will now go back on my original stand and say that's it's debatable. I was under the presumption that if any legal stance is avaialable, the player has to take it. This comes from the reading of the rule about large solid objets (if the disc is leaning against a tree and between the tree and the pin).

If we agree with my interpretation of #3, the question is where does #2 end, and #3 begin.

803.03
E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from
taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters
directly behind the mini marker disc, the player
shall take his or her stance immediately behind
that obstacle on the line of play.

I've bolded the key words. Of course, the casual obstacle rule does not make any such wording, it merely says "Obstacles to stance or throwing motion" and leaves that up to the players to decide.

DGRZ #004

Jim, I think number two should be revised to simply say "It's possible to take a legal stance, but it is not the preferred stance."

Since the casual relief section doesn't specify the stance, I think we have to use the earlier reference in the section, 803.03.E, and say that if you can take a (legal) stance without being impinged on by the obstacle, then you must. Otherwise you try to move the obstacle, and then you relocate up to five meters on the LOP.

Wording this is really tough, though, because you can stand in casual water and be in legal stance. How do you state this rule clearly and concisely? It's not like OB where your stance is illegal if your supporting point is OB. Maybe "if a casual obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the mini marker disc that is clear of the casual obstacle, then..." Yeah, that might work.

I think the intent is there because of the solid obstacle language. 803.03.E makes no mention of "preferred stance", just legal stance. I think we have to stick with that as the intent.

DGRZ #003

Oh yeah, all that stance stuff in the rule book that says "a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the mini marker disc" is redundant! Why not just say "a legal stance"?

Rhett, I definetly agree with the wording on a legal stance, it's redundant.

I'm not sure we can jump from casual obstacle to a solid obstacle like that and assume intent. I'm a hardass, so personally, I'd rewrite the rules to match my original interpretation. You're correct, the wording is difficult since we have to think about every possible casual obstacle, moveable or not, however, I'm not sure that it's fair to interpret the existing rules in this way.

DGRZ #004

Scott, I'm surprised at you. I just re-read your original post (don't know how I missed it before), but apparently some people, even DGRZs think the 10 meters = 30'.

DGRZ #004.

10 meters = 32.8 feet

Please

Stance is not defined to any detail as it pertains to 803.04C on purpose (imo of course). Therefore, ANY stance that causes the thrower to be in any part of any casual obstacle can take the casual releif granted as if his or her whole stance was in that casual obstacle area. As long as the stance follows the stance rule 803.03.

Now 803.03E implies that as long as a legal stance can be taken, the player must use that stance but if a large SOLID obstacle PREVENTS that player from being able to take any legal stance, then relief is provided direclty behind the obstacle. This rule has no direct relation to 803.04. One defines stance, the other defines relief.

If 803.04C2 said something like if a casual area prevents a player from getting a legal stance,....but it does not.

So, in my interpretation of this scenerio, if any stance a player feels they want to use causes them to be IN the casual area, then 803.04C2 applies and releif can be granted up to 5 meters on a lop if the player chooses to use that releif.

-Scott

PS Yes, I am guilty of equating 10 meters with 30' and have only recently come to the realization, thanks to this board, that it is just under 33'. 10 meters is still just 3 big steps but it does explain some measurement problems I was trying over the winter. Duh. Thanks.

10 meters = 32.8 feet

Please

thanks for your help scott. i can see this being called both ways. who is in charge of rules? carlton, mark ellis? i wonder how this has been interpreted. i'll see john houck tonight, maybe he knows.

10 meters = 32.80833333 feet
For english non-decimal measure thinkers, just a hair over 32 feet, 9 11/16ths inches.

Please ;)

If you don't have a metric measuring device, and are using a feet-and-inches measuring device, then you must use the conversion:
10-m = 32-ft,10-in

All other calculations, whether 30-ft, 33-ft, 32-ft,9 11/16-in, or anything else, are not allowed. If you want to be more accurate than 32-ft,10-in, you must use a metric measure. If you must use a feet-and-inches measure, then it's 32-ft,10-in.

Please, 805.A.

Good one. As a Certified Official, I'm disappointed I missed this!

Perhaps a different thread beating up another rule is in order for our entertainment? Revise 805.A as it discredits the skill of DGolfers to accurately covert metric to english measures? Are we to be insulted?

I think I just had a couple of non-rules thrown at me this last weekend.

I forgot one of them (DOH) but the other non-rule was that you can't drink alcohol during a PDGA tourney. As I understand the holy rulebook, alcohol is stroked only if it's illegal or if the TD says not to drink. And I told the golfer so. I was correct, right?

I also very occasionally get the collared shirts in A-tiers rule -- kurt from Seattle

Kurt,

Alcohol is a DQ-able offense if it is illegal to drink in the park!

I drink like a fish away from the course. I sometimes drink during casual rounds of DG. I even drink after a PDGA tourney. But during? If it ain't a rule, it should be, even if the park or TD says it's OK. Honestly, people.

It shouldn't be for me. I like it. It's good for me. It replaces what my body is needing during stress. Alcohol. It also keeps me regular.

Is it in you?

http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

But, really. I've wondered many times during my extremely lengthy disc golf career (over one whole YEAR!!!) how are people supposed to take this sport seriously (especially with the rep it brings to the table) if you can booze it up or burn one during a round of sanctioned competition. Maybe this is another thread.

You can't "burn one", that's still illegal in most states (of course it's still up to the TD whether or not to DQ the player), but if alchohol is not specifically illegal or otherwise prohibited at the park/course, then it's not against the rules.

And Kurt, you are correct, except there is no provision to assess strokes. It's DQ or nothing at all, and completely up to the TD's discretion.

Mark Atwood just hit the main "Rule non-Rule" on the, ahem, "head". So to speak.

I heard one last night...I think. I understood that a disc completely surrounded by O.B. was O.B. but a guy I talked to last night said over 50% of the disc was all that was required for it to be O.B.

DGRZ's?

From http://pdga.com/select_all_rules.php

RULE: 803.08
OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only
when it comes to rest and it is clearly and
completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds
area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to
be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by
the action of the water or the wind on the
water. See section 803.02 E. The out-of-bounds
line itself is considered in-bounds.

Some good new ones this week:

- Players get two minutes on the tee pad before they have to tee off (actually this one is already in this thread way back over a year ago).

- A legal stance requires a player to have all supporting points behind a line that is perpendicular to the Line Of Play.

- You must indicate in advance if you are going to follow through past your mark when outside 10m.

- Certain courtesy violations require a re-throw.

and one from a few months back:

- The Missed Mando Line stops at the OB line.

Let's have a non-rules rules tourney! Player with the highest score wins/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Agent, the 'you must notify in advance if you are going to follow through .... when outside 10m' I believe started as getting a courtesy call on distance, before you threw if you were unsure about the 10 meters (Now is that 32.82 feet or 393.84 inches?) I think it is used by some players and am's misunderstood it to be a rule.

THIS IS A STUPID THREAD...

Seewhere, you only say that because one of your phantom rules is in it /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Jerry, that makes sense, but it's still amazing that people insist that it's a rule; Randy says he got called on this when he was like 70' out. And 10m is 32' 10" according to the rule book.

- Officials can assess penalty strokes for violations of rule 804.05 (4)

I nominate AP for DGpRZ 001.

I'm not taking that position until the salary triples.

AP, sorry I let slip that I was an engineer by not converting the .82 feet to inches. /clipart/wink.gif

You let slip that you don't know the rules /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif.

"The following English System
equivalents are to be used when no metric
measuring device is available. Under no
circumstances shall players or officials use
independent conversion calculations."

"The Missed Mando Line stops at the OB line."
A.P., does this have to do with that "island" shot of yours with the manditory? That isn't O.B. ...it's a phantom zone!
Under, uh, "normal" circumstances, you know, with a fairway and stuff, the mandy line might end, and then resume once inbounds (if the O.B. line undulates, and is roughly parallel to the mandy line), but even if you go out there and paint it, how could it affect play?

The mando/ob is a fiasco.

My all-time favorite non-rule is: "When a disc gets wedged in the side of the basket, you have to pull the disc through the basket from the inside or else it doesn't count."

I've seen a few good DX plastic discs get a touch warped from players pulling them all the way through the basket sides! /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

How about this one from this weekend, "I was picking up my disc because it was going to be my seventh throw and the maximum amount of strokes that you can take on a hole is seven." I just about crapped my pants when I heard that! That was probably the first rules-related question I ever asked during my first-ever round.

Phantom rule #802.14p

A disc lodged 2m over the playing surface is marked directly underneath unless upon knocking the disc down it lands closer to the basket, then you play it where it fell.

Randy, there's no fiasco, I was right, and everyone else was wrong. It's quite simple actually.

meat, no it wasn't the island hole with a mando that started the discussion, that actually came along later. If you have a few hourse to kill, read this (http://pdga.com/discus/messages/42/4826.html?1016807284) thread.

PHANTOM RULE: 803.08p OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.

Ap. All pavement shall be considered out-of-bounds just like water in 803.08A.

PHANTOM RULE: 822.22p

When playing doubles, if after picking up a short drive and proceeding to the longer throw you discover the longer throw has a much more difficult throw, you can return to about where the first one was and play from there.

Uhh Paul, did you just imply the phantom rule that all water is OB?

No

Heck let us start with the first rule of disc golf, phantom rule: 801.01 on a disc golf course the players have the right of way.

Jim you have gone to far! I did not use the conversion to actually measure if it was 10 meters I was simply pondering the distance. /clipart/wink.gif

822.22p All water is OB.

How about this one.

If I can't get a good stance I get safe footing relief, without a stroke (or two).

Good one Kyle. That's the first, the central and the last rule in the book!

806p Glossary
Par: 3

807.01p Course design
A Every basket should free of obstructions or OB in all directions for 10m

Screw Rules! Let's take it to the Tee Box

Forgot the /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

808.04
A players supporting point of contact, directly behind the mark cannot be lower or higher than the mark.

808.05
A players supporting point of contact, directly behind the mark can be lower or higher than the mark.

888.44
Anything violation can be a warning.

888.45p
All your base are belong to me.

us

He wasn't quoting, he was saying.

All your post are belong to me.

rodney

Marijuana is legal 804.05A(4)p

I'm pretty sure this is a nonrules rule. After putting out, I forgot to pick up my mini. A guy in my group picked it up and gave it to me on the next tee. He said, "Don't worry, I won't stroke you." I asked "For what?" He then explained that you must pick up your mini before going to remove your disc from the basket. I handed him a rule book and asked him to find it, and we could find no such rule. But the two other players in my group were sure that this was a rule.

Is it a rule?

804.05A(5)p

While smoking of marijuana is not condoned, not sharing shall constitute a courtesy violation if called by one or more players on the card within 2 minutes of said illeagal substance being lit.

804.05A (6)p

A courtesy violation cannot be called if the substance is replaced in bag or pocket prior to call. If the player is teeing off, the player's stash may be utilized without permission of teeing player.

If someone cites a wacky non-rule rule, challenge them to show it to you in the rule book. This can be an effective way of dealing with the issue. If it's not in the rule book, then it is not a rule.

It's not Tim, although the rules fanaticals will now appear and cite you for littering, or leaving you equipment in the way, or when Randy gets here it will be some odd playing surface reference.

Oh geeze, I've never heard that one. I suppose someone once decided that they were demonstrating balance before advancing by picking up their mini so it became a phantom rule that you had to pick up your mini before retrieving your disc.

Pretty incredible.

Tim, I think your team mates were invoking phantom rule #804.05A (6)p above.

A.P., I read most of that O.B./Mando disc_ussion when it happened. Can you list one instance where it (having the mandy line extend into O.B.) would make a difference? Then I'd apologize and drop the matter. Thanks.

Disc crosses into OB territory, passes the mando on the incorrect side, then hyzers back and land inbounds.

If the MML does not extend past the OB line, then the disc never crossed the MML even though it clearly passed the mando on the incorrect side.

Same thing for the island hole with the entire mando sitting in OB territory. To miss the mando the disc has to cross over the MML. If the mando is OB and the MML can not extend into OB, there is no MML.

AP, are you talking about the Made Mando Line?

Good answer. The mando line must extend at least as far as anyone could possible throw a disc in case it comes back inbounds. If it didn't come back inbounds...there would be no need for the extension into OB.

But since it must extend for one purpose, the rules committee seemed to forget the purpose of OB. So in the case of this silly rule...OB only exists if you don't miss the mando. Stay behind and mark your disc where it where it went OB, then try and navigate the mando again. If you miss the mando, depending on the design of the hole, move ahead to the drop zone because by missing the mando you have received a get out-of-bounds free card and can now shoot clear of the mando.

"If the MML does not extend past the OB line, then the disc never crossed the MML even though it clearly passed the mando on the incorrect side."
Missed Manditory Line?
If it missed the mandy it misses. It's sitting there, in bounds, past the mandy line, which it missed. What does going in and out of O.B. have to do with it?

MML = Missed Mando Line.

If the MML does not exist in OB territory, then the disc in the above scenarios does not cross over it, it goes around it. Therefore it doesn't meet the complete definition of 803.11 B to have missed the mando.

803.11 B
A throw is
considered to have missed the mandatory if it
passes the incorrect side of the mandatory,
crosses the mandatory line from the direction of
the tee, and comes to rest lying completely
beyond that line.

It also has not passed the mando on the correct side as required by 803.11 A, so the player can't complete the hole. My interpretation is that the player would now have to unwind. Clearly not the intent of the new mando rule.

Therefore, the MML must extend to infinity whether or not there is OB.

Yes it must. But it shouldn't obliterate the OB line that precedes it.

Tim, I first heard about that in Oklahoma, go figure.

B. A disc passing the incorrect side of the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty, and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory. A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.
(1) The mandatory line is the line marked by the director or course designer to indicate when a disc has passed the mandatory.
(2) If no line is marked, the mandatory line is defined as a straight line through the mandatory, perpendicular to the line from the tee to the mandatory.

There is nothing in the rule that says the ML can't cross an OB line.

Also, The OB line only comes into play for discs that come to rest in an OB area. Just because the disc flies over OB doesn't mean that it is OB (another phantom rule I've seen here before). It's where the disc lands that counts. In this case, the disc flew over OB, crossed the ML and landed in bounds. It missed the mando and needs to mark at the drop zone with a penalty stroke.

However, if the disc came to rest OB, it would be marked at the point where it crossed the OB line with a penalty stroke.

Susan. Welcome to the club! What you just described is what most sane people would think to be true. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

There is a thread (I blocked it's name from my memory) that pounds the mando/ob dilemna to a pulp.

Apparantly, the rules committee or someone on the rules committee, decided that if a disc crosses OB 5' off the tpad and stays over and lands in the same ob, the disc is not ob if it crosses a mando line somewhere between where it went ob and where it landed.

The disc would go to the mando drop zone.

If the same shot goes ob 5' off the tpad, and falls in the same ob 1' short of the mando line, the disc would be marked where it went ob.

I consider it to be the silliest rule.

O.K. A.P., you got me, that's what the rule says. I apologize for inferring you were incorrect. It seems silly, but I'm technically wrong. The imaginary line "must" be there for the disc to cross over it. The argument being that to get to appear on side of the line, it has to cross somewhere. In my mind, this imaginary line is redundant; It's a visual aid for some, I guess. If I come home with all the doors locked and a burgler in the house, I don't have to wonder how he got in, just that he's there. Others would point to the broken window, the glass near his feet and conclude he's an intruder. I skipped the detective part and went right to judge.
But just because it "exists" doesn't mean it serves a purpose...

Susan you were 100% correct until your last sentence.

803.08 E says
"A throw that misses a mandatory shall be penalized and the lie marked according to the mandatory rule (803.11). It will not be further penalized for any other reason, such as out-of-bounds or above two meters."

Also don't forget that if a disc comes to rest OB (and has not missed a mando), it is not necessarily marked where it last crossed the OB line, there are now 3 options any of which can be taken away by the TD. 1. Rethrow from last lie, 2. Drop Zone or 3. Marked where it last crossed.

<FONT SIZE="-1">or were you just trying to give another example of a phantom rule???</FONT>

Is this officially a non-rule?:
You have to use a mini in the drop zone.

1. would not apply. I said it was coming off the tpad.

2. Either way, from the tpad or 5' from the tpad is going to be a much tougher shot than the drop zone. Both throws will have to navigate the mando.

So...instead of using the "not be further penalized" to mean adding an ob stroke to missing the mando, the player that does not miss the mando is penalized for not missing the mando. If only they had missed the mando. Silliest rule.

I'd argue that option 1 still applys on tee shots, though the exact wording on the rule is not clear on this. 803.08pB1.5

You don't know that the tee-pad would be tougher than the drop zone. An evil TD could make the drop zone worse than the tee pad, and the DZ could certainly be the tee pad as it is in many places.

AP. One question. Why is it necessary to have a mando line negate a disc being marked OB before the mando line?

Because the disc isn't OB until it comes to rest.

Yes. And a disc has not missed the mando until it has come to rest.

That would be a tie.

Although there are options, a disc that goes OB can still be marked where it went OB. Where it lands just confirms that the lie would be where it went OB. Same with the mando.

That would be a tie.

The only thing that truly seperates the two is which comes first. The ruling has ignored this fact. Silly ruling.

Neither comes first, both occur at the same time, the moment the disc comes to rest.

The only thing that truly seperates the two is the wording in the rule book which states that a disc that has missed the mando shall not be penalized for being OB.

We both know they meant that it wouldn't be an added stroke and now they are stuck with the wording.

And no, the disc crosses OB before it crosses the mando line. If it doesn't we wouldn't be discussing it because it obviously missed the mando.

Took the hint from AP on the new thread, so I'll post it here. Plus, this thread needs re-direction away from the mando-O/B argument.

Here's the non-rule rule I encountered a couple weeks ago:

In situations in which the tee is marked only by a line on the ground or two flags/stakes marking each end of the front line, the disc must cross over the line/between the stakes in order to be a legal tee shot.

This was during a tournament too...the second round actually. A player in my group called me on it after I threw a big anhyzer that "exitted" the tee area out the right side (I'm lefthanded), and not up the middle. The tee faces a narrow tunnel shot, but there is a clear, open shot that goes up and over the right side of the 'tunnel' to the pin as well...many players use the same route I did on this hole. The other player said that someone in his morning group (a pro, no less) had told him that was the rule.

I told him I was not in violation of any rule, so when he doubted me, I calmly handed him my rule book (2002 edition/clipart/happy.gif) and insisted he find it. He didn't, of course.

It was the first time I'd heard this one, has anyone else?

--Josh

There is an old course in Maine where the disc-must-cross-the-tee-line rule is a "local" rule. By long-standing tradition, the front of the tee box is treated as a "double mando" and as long as the disc makes the mando, stance is irrelevent. This rule (and a few variations) has been used at some tournaments, as specified by the TD. Of course, this is not a PDGA rule.

Ron,

That explains more than you realize. The tournament happened to be in Maine...the "pro" who quoted the rule (not the guy who called me on it) probably dates back to those days and the use of that rule. But as far as I know, the rule isn't applied at any events at any of the ME courses I've played (which is pretty much all of the ones that have advertised events...Enman, Beaverbrook, Dragan, Burnsboro, Eaton Mtn, Grasseyland).

Thanks.

--Josh

It was a local rule at Beaver Brook, a very old Steady Ed course.

Thank God the D.O rule doesn't apply to disc golf or I'd have a nasty sunburn!!/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif http://www.newsqueak.com/articles/178.asp

LOL, as long as you save par, the D.O. rule does not apply.

I added this rule at Beaverbrook to prevent the local "homey routes". It is still in effect for this years Beaverbrook Open. At no other courses I am TD is this "rule" in effect. Josh,send me an email and let me know who the Pro was. I can keep a secret, GregH

How about this one:

A disc thrown in water is in bounds if it floats to, and/or is touching/stops on the bank!

What is wrong with these people?

The rules clearly state:

RULE: 803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.

I guess if it isn't seen by anybody, then you must assume that it didn't float to the bank or shore and would be ruled safe, or in bounds. However, if it is seen floating, then right then and there, it's O.B. Right?

Water is in-bounds and casual by default. It's only OB if specifically designated by the TD.

/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

Obviously i should have been a little more specific. Let's assume that the creek or pond has been designated by the TD as O.B.

So, a player throws into a creek running alongside the fairway that is flowing in the direction of the throw. When does the disc stop moving forward on its own momentum versus the creek current taking over? Assume the players could see the disc since it left the player's hand.

When it has stopped skipping and is going the same speed as the surrounding water?

> When does the disc stop moving forward on its own momentum versus the creek current taking over?

When the disc is resting on the water and its forward speed relative to the current, as judged by an official or the majority of the group, is 0. After that, it's moving only by the action of the water. This interpretation allows the thrower to play a provisional if he/she disagrees with the ruling of the group or the official, and to have the issue decided by the TD. (Of course, if the disc is being carried downstream by the current and the thrower has to play the provisonal from where the disc comes to rest in bounds, he might end up somewhere in the next county, in which case the official/group should change their minds and make him play it from there. /clipart/proud.gif)

My $0.02.

Non-rules rule: In Doubles the partner on the long tee must throw first.

It may actually be the rule in USGA golf that a player shooting from a shorter tee cedes honors to the player shooting from the longer tee. It is how we play family golf, disc and ball, in my family. We have no such rule in our sport. Our "away rule" does not apply until after the drives are thrown.

In doubles tonight I suggested to my partner Marnie "Who-Does-Not-Like-Her-Name-Mentioned-In-This-Forum" White that she should throw first on 17 so I could decide whether to roll it. This got Rick worked up so good that when he objected I stuck to my guns and pulled out the rules. Unfortunately, the confrontation worked Marnie just as good, and Rick plays better angry!

P.S. MW: I picked up your mini absentmindedly on 18 and forgot to return it. I'll drop it off on the way out of town tomorrow if I remember.

Someone wrote in another thread:


but I am almost sure that in DG you CANNOT add a disc to your bag DURING a round.



People must think that because in ball golf you are restricted to 14 clubs, there must be a similar rule in disc golf.

Hogwash! There's no such rule.

Someone wrote in another thread:


but I am almost sure that in DG you CANNOT add a disc to your bag DURING a round.



People must think that because in ball golf you are restricted to 14 clubs, there must be a similar rule in disc golf.

Hogwash! There's no such rule.



Correct !!!!!! There is no such rule !!!!!

You just can not bring a broken or cracked disc.

You can add or subtract whatever amount you want , just make sure others in your group know it's your disc being thrown.
If you borrow someone elses disc , the group should also know that your using a specific disc being thrown with someone else's name , in case they think your playing someone else's disc !!!!!! Know what I mean !!!! ;)

I have seen guys go back to their car and add and subtract discs , no problem.

My only Issue on the amount of disc's being carried is while playing Disc Golf on a Ball Golf course.

I think the number is 14 discs only. Read this on a Fly 18 Score card. This maybe only on specific Ball Golf courses though.

One thing while playing Disc Golf on a Ball Golf course, that is not in the PDGA rules is the OB lines.

The Red , White and Yellow stakes are usually OB.

This goes for Lakes and other hazzards on the Ball Golf course.

All Greens and Sand Traps are also OB. Check with each course if the 2 meter rule is in affect as well.

Donny Olow

Now I'm wondering if I ever returned the mini...

My only Issue on the amount of disc's being carried is while playing Disc Golf on a Ball Golf course.

I think the number is 14 discs only. Read this on a Fly 18 Score card. This maybe only on specific Ball Golf courses though.



Initially Reese said that there was a 14 disc limit and they all had to be white. He's since come to his senses on those topics and abandoned the ideas.

It doesn't matter where a tournament is played, if it's PDGA sanctioned, then a TD cannot make up extra rules. As to the OB lines on a golf course or anywhere else: it is in the rules that TD's can designate OB areas at they see fit. At present there are no color and/or substance standards for marking OB lines in disc golf.

This one came up in BG a couple times. People were saying that if you throw OB, you are not allowed to use the disc that you threw OB on your next throw. I couldnt find any rule in the book that said that. Seems to me you can throw whatever disc you want as long as you do it in the time allotted after marking your lie or stating that you're rethrowing from the previous one.

Then, it turned into "you cant throw the same disc if you are re-teeing" which once again I couldnt find. If you can run and get your disc and get back to the tee to throw in under 30 seconds, it seems to me that you should be able to throw whatever you want.

You don't even need to run back in under 30 seconds. You are given reasonable time to arrive before the 30 seconds starts. The only time you can't throw the same disc again is if you foot fault (803.04.H).

Two other times when you can't throw the same disc: a) If you are using the disc as your marker or b) Bruce says don't get it because we don't want to tick off the neighbor.

The only time you can't throw the same disc again is if you foot fault (803.04.H).


And you are outside 10 meters.

Unless the TD announces otherwise, you may retrieve your lost disc and use it again (within time limit).

There are many legitimate reasons for a TD to prevent players from retrieving OB discs: no trespassing on private property, unsafe for players to retrieve, protected habitat area, too time consuming, etc.