You still managed to avoid his point.

Direct questions.

Why is 2 meters more of an arbitrary number thatn 2 cm ?

Why is one arbitrary number good and the other bad ?

The question, in accordance with refining our rules to ensure fair play and defend the game of golf is this:

Should improving your lie so that you have an unencumbered run up, stance, throwing motion and flight path to the hole be permitted. If not how do we word the rules to not permit it. If so what are appropriate limitations.



Hardly a survey of whether people are affected positively or negatively - more a referendum on whether or not we need a rule change. I am suggesting that one come before the other - you discount the first and go straight to the second.


I am willing to compromise (hence "loose debris" option), but I feel strongly that our rules, as concern this specific rule, need to move towards a position of strengthening the language that discourages moving stuff around to improve run up, stance, throwing motion or flight path to hole, while encouraging competitors to learn to deal with "playing it where it lies". (This not being an alein concept in the game of golf.)



The only part I agree with has to do with obstacles to the flight of the disc. Casual relief rules have been specifically inserted to allow the player the opportunity to continue play without undue impact from transient objects. Because they are there - I have assumed (and found from personal experience) that the rule has a foundation in pragmatism and safety - without significant impact on the field of play or playing environment. Removing a casual obstacle seldom makes a lie change from being totally encumbered - to totally unencumbered Nick. The player more often than not - still has to pull off a great shot to get out of the shule. All your suggestion would do would be to make the rules overly punitive.

If you're going to take that bent - then it needs to be all or nothing. Either no relief at all from any obstacle - or defined casual and permant obstacles as we already have. Anything in between won't work - and the stricter version will get little if any support.

Rhett raises an interesting question Nick - where did you come up with 2cm? that's about the size of a nickel - doesn't sound very reasonable - and pretty arbitrary too.

Anything in between won't work - and the stricter version will get little if any support.



Fine, then I assume that you agree with me that the current rule does not work and you do not support it since it is in reality "in between".

This game is disc golf. We never play it where it lies.
We place one supporting point near where it landed and then do everything we possibly can to improve upon whatever we wee from there. With the wide range of grips and throws possible, and the variance of position we can get with a stance, we are never required to "play it where it lies".

Never have, Never will.

Do we need "players will take a stance with the leading point of contact on the lie (on LOP and within 30 cm of the mark) and all other points of contact must also be on the LOP and no closer to the target than the leading point of contact. All throws will be right of left handed back hand throws".

At least in this way, we will all be forced to play the lies the same way.

Nick, your rationale and arguments are reminding me of Bush/Cheney: ever-changing and purposely deceptive.

You state:


but I feel strongly that our rules, as concern this specific rule, need to move towards a position of strengthening the language that discourages moving stuff around to improve run up, stance, throwing motion or flight path to hole



It wouldn't be the first time I am wrong, but who is advocating (or even allowed under the present rules) moving obstacles to change flight paths? If your answer is "keeping all rocks and stones in their original place" argument, spare me.

Secondly, the only casual obstacle related to throwing motion is dead and unattached sticks that hang in a bush. If this is your target, why not focus on this alone. Rocks and sticks on the ground don't affect throwing motion.

Finally, stating that you are "strengthening" the rules related to stance and runup is nonsense, you are merely changing them. It is like saying you are strenghtening the rules for freedom of speech by outlining the instances under which you plan to curtail it.

In sum, your argument primarily effects stance and runup. Don't dress it up as something else.

This game is disc golf. We never play it where it lies.
We place one supporting point near where it landed and then do everything we possibly can to improve upon whatever we wee from there. With the wide range of grips and throws possible, and the variance of position we can get with a stance, we are never required to "play it where it lies".

Never have, Never will.

Do we need "players will take a stance with the leading point of contact on the lie (on LOP and within 30 cm of the mark) and all other points of contact must also be on the LOP and no closer to the target than the leading point of contact. All throws will be right of left handed back hand throws".

At least in this way, we will all be forced to play the lies the same way.



Gary,

How would you define our disc golf "lie"?
Does such a thing exist?
Without it, how can we play disc "golf"?
How about "lie" as it pertains to the general game of golf?

Regards,
Nick

Nick, your rationale and arguments are reminding me of Bush/Cheney: ever-changing and purposely deceptive.

You state:

[QUOTE]
but I feel strongly that our rules, as concern this specific rule, need to move towards a position of strengthening the language that discourages moving stuff around to improve run up, stance, throwing motion or flight path to hole.





What exactly is �ever-changing and purposely deceptive� about that? Nothing could be more straightforward and on point.


It wouldn't be the first time I am wrong, but who is advocating (or even allowed under the present rules) moving obstacles to change flight paths? If your answer is "keeping all rocks and stones in their original place" argument, spare me.



James, our current rule allows it.

Example 1: A large dead branch is leaning up against another tree. The branch is 30 feet tall and has many side branches. Under our current rules, if your disc lands completely between that branch and the hole, the player can pull it down to make room for his/her run up, stance and throwing motion.

Question 1: Does this not significantly alter the shot selection and execution of that specific lie?

Question 2: Does this not significantly alter the shot selection, execution and flight path options of all subsequent competitors?

Example 2: A large dead branch is across the fairway. The branch is 30 feet long and has many side branches reaching up and out. Under our current rules, if your disc lands completely between that branch and the hole, the player can pull it aside (even off the fairway) to make room for his/her run up, stance and throwing motion.

Question 1: Does this not significantly alter the shot selection and execution of that specific lie?

Question 2: Does this not significantly alter the shot selection, execution and flight path options of all subsequent competitors?

Example 3: A small pile of tiny sticks is in the middle of the fairway. None of the sticks is more than 2 centimeters wide or 1 meter long, but combined they are 10 centimeters high and cover an area of 1 meter. Under our current rules, if your disc lands completely between that pile and the hole, the player can push it aside (even off the fairway) to make room for his/her run up, stance and throwing motion.

Question 1: Does this not significantly alter the shot selection and execution of that specific lie?

Question 2: Does this not significantly alter the shot selection and execution options of all subsequent competitors?

It clearly does. And I would like to see that further restricted than it is under our current rules.


Secondly, the only casual obstacle related to throwing motion is dead and unattached sticks that hang in a bush. If this is your target, why not focus on this alone. Rocks and sticks on the ground don't affect throwing motion.



At this point I have to seriously wonder James, whether you have been following this discussion at all.

Is throwing motion simply the motion of your arm? Or is it everything your body does just prior to releasing the disc? What elements on the course affect that �Motion�? Only obstacles in the direct path of the disc to the hole? Do obstacles to run up have an affect on throwing motion? How about obstacles to stance? Do obstacles to run up (whether permanent or casual, intended by the director or not) have an affect on run up?

Clearly they do. They are part of the challenge that faces every golfer who goes out and plays a course. Those are the challenges that need to be preserve, and specifically preserved during a �single� round of competition.


Finally, stating that you are "strengthening" the rules related to stance and runup is nonsense, you are merely changing them. It is like saying you are strenghtening the rules for freedom of speech by outlining the instances under which you plan to curtail it.

In sum, your argument primarily effects stance and runup. Don't dress it up as something else.



I have not dressed it up as anything but what it is: A proposal to strengthen the Obstacle and Relief rules of play to preserve the challenge presented to disc golfers during a single round of golf. My proposal addresses in a complete fashion ALL elements on a course that can be considered �obstacles� to play and protects them from alteration just to give someone an easier shot.

No single rule we currently have populating our rulebook is as close to legalized �cheating� as this one. No single rule in our rulebook allows, even sanctions, as much destruction to the presented and consistent challenge of our courses as this one does. And naturally no single rule is beloved by players addicted to its forgiveness for bad shots as much as this one is.

The thing I find particularly enjoyable about watching this discussion is that you guys act like it will change our game in a significant way! LOL!

We have been playing according to these rules (hopefully) concerning what we currently call and define as permanent obstacles since we first started playing the game! We know when we will likely injury ourselves when faced with certain hazardous situations around our lie and have developed throws and techniques to deal with it. The advantage of widening our understanding and definition of course obstacles will be even a greater competitive advantage for players like Craig, who have nearly mastered getting out of difficult and encumbered lies. The benefit is that that situation he so skillfully extricated himself from will be there again for another player to deal with (certainly within the same round). The benefit to the competition is that everyone will face �as close as we can humanly manage� the same challenges. The benefit to our sport is that it will have more consistent rules that are easier to understand and play by.

You still managed to avoid his point.

Direct questions.

Why is 2 meters more of an arbitrary number thatn 2 cm ?

Why is one arbitrary number good and the other bad ?





I do not accept your implied premise that I have been evasive. I do openly imply that you have been purposefully inattentive to the main issues discussed and specific to the lack of significance or relevance of the difference between 2 meters and 2 centimeters as measurements within our rules.

But here you are:


Why is 2 meters more of an arbitrary number thatn 2 cm ?



I never said it was. Can you quote where I did? Thought not.


Why is one arbitrary number good and the other bad ?



Your question assumes that I affirm a presumption that I do not; so commenting on whether it is �good or bad� is moot.

If you are looking for the answers to the �hidden� or �what I guessed you were asking� questions go back and read the post I posted earlier. If you want me to answer more specifically, then you need to phrase your questions to be more specific.

I am not in favor of providing any relief what so ever, even for tiny sticks, but was offering an option to be considered that would still increase the strength and move us towards our rules extending greater protection to the challenges of our courses.

Ok kids,

Nick does not want you to be able to move ANY objects, but he was willing to compromise by allowing movement of small debris and put a number on it.

Can we get on with what is an acceptable object to move? Or acceptable size of object to move? Or, are Craig and James simply going to hold fast that the rule should not be changed PERIOD, with absolutely no compromise?

I think the rule should be re-written to do away with a free 5 meter relief on the LOP. I think it is important to keep the part of the rule that enables you to move loose objects diretly under foot so you don't hurt yourself, but I don't think you should be able to move an entire wood pile or pile of rocks to get that stance. I don't think you should be allowed to move debris to provide and entire run up. If you can't get a good stance, you must take a penalty throw to relocate. NO MORE FREE RELIEF from casual obstacles.

So, is anyone willing to compromise about how much debris or the size of loose debris that can be moved, or are you just going to hold ground and say the rule is ok like it is?

I personally think the rule is not ok, but not for the same reasons as Nick. At least he tried to come up with a compromise to his NO MOVEMENT IDEAL. My proposed compromise to Nick was to allow a player to clear a specific area for a stance regardless of the size of the object much like the current rules.

So, Craig and James are you going to keep arguing that Nick is arbitrary or are you going to offer compromises?

IMO the rule needs to be rewritten to do away with the free releif, and while we are rewriting the rule, we can and should restrict the amount of alterations players can make to the course. The current rule does allow too much movement of objects and is way too lenient with releif.

Nick, the stick laying high enough next to a tree to effect throwing motion is extremely rare. Gravity pulls most sticks to the ground. Anyway, your concern here lies with your lame "keep the course as it is" argument. Since NOONE will notice 99.9% of most debris movement, and since 99.9% of all debris is virtually irrelevant to disc flights (these are usually on the ground and would only effect skips and slides), this concern over "keeping the course as it is" is UNFOUNDED. In other words, noone would even know if rocks and sticks have moved since the round began, and frankly, I've never met anyone who cares.

Secondly, your fantasy of "keeping the course as it is" is unacheivable. This has been pointed out a number of times to you already. Again, the changes wrought to the course by people moving debris conciously will be imperceptible from the debris moved uncounsciously. In other words, if your are anally concerned over the exact location of every stick and stone, you will be disappointed, EVEN IF YOUR PROPOSAL IS ADOPTED.

Also, you have now added new meaning (to me at least) to "throwing motion." The rules specifically mention three separate terms: "stance," "throwing motion," and "runup." Therefore, I assume they all have different meanings. In your typical style, you confuse the issue by stating that "stance" and "runup" are "throwing motion." So, once again, other than the rare unattached stick that somehow comes to rest above the ground, your argument primarily effects stance and runup. Don't dress it up as something else.

I have no problem with compromises. If I had a better undestanding of the problem, I would be more willing to support solutions. Nick seems to have a strange idealistic view that I do not share. Others seem to be concerned about people spending a lot of time moving lots of large stuff. Your concern seems to revolve around the 5 meter relief and the new options it may allow the player. I could easily live with new rules that addressed the last two concerns, but not the first.

I would support only allowing a short time period (even less than 30 seconds) as once again, my concern lies with the small things that I can usually kick away or move in a matter of seconds. I could also support tightening the distance relief (up to five meters) unless it was absolutely necessary. However, I can think of times relief is needed such as throwing under a car or something.

Hi Discette,

Could there be changes to the rules that would make them better, fairer, more consistent? Absolutely. Will changing the "relief from casual obstacles" rules do any of this? Not in my opinion.

Nick's proposal and subsequent amendment/"compromise" - fails to acknowledge any merit inherent in the relief rules. It also fails to acknowledge the potential detriments of attempting such a change. I found the post about the physical reality of how we "play it where it lies" very appropriate. We NEVER "play it where it lies" - in the truest sense of the phrase. The only comparison between the way we do it in DG - and the way they do it in BG - is the identification of the marked spot itself - and even that is a stretch - because we mark the spot - and they leave it where it landed. This is the reason we even NEED our stance rules, and reflects why they are specific to our sport. Relief rules are designed to allow for a reasonably "prepared" lie for us to continue play. To say that it is against the basic tenets of the game fails to recognize the unique qualities inherent in our game which differ from our older cousin. Which makes the notion of this condition being an abomination or cheating so totally ludicrous.

In regards to your desire to eliminate the 5meter relief on the LOP - I recently came across a situation that makes me support that rule. A guy got stuck above 2meters in a HUGE, thorny bush. Placing his mark directly below would have put him right in the middle of it - unplayable lie without significant blood letting. Being that he had been penalized once - not allowing him relief (and 5meters just barely got him out of the bush - and then put him behind a huge obstacle) would seem to me to amount to double jeopardy - which I have come to understand as an undesirable place for our rules "to go". So while I don't disagree that perhaps 5meter relief without penalty is perhaps a little lenient - I can see the occasional reasonable application for it.

Is throwing motion simply the motion of your arm? Or is it everything your body does just prior to releasing the disc? What elements on the course affect that �Motion�? Only obstacles in the direct path of the disc to the hole? Do obstacles to run up have an affect on throwing motion? How about obstacles to stance? Do obstacles to run up (whether permanent or casual, intended by the director or not) have an affect on run up?



Gee Nick - that sound just like the argument I used for justifying throwing from "within" the bounds of the tee box last year :)

In regards to your desire to eliminate the 5meter relief on the LOP - I recently came across a situation that makes me support that rule. A guy got stuck above 2meters in a HUGE, thorny bush. Placing his mark directly below would have put him right in the middle of it - unplayable lie without significant blood letting. Being that he had been penalized once - not allowing him relief (and 5meters just barely got him out of the bush - and then put him behind a huge obstacle) would seem to me to amount to double jeopardy - which I have come to understand as an undesirable place for our rules "to go". So while I don't disagree that perhaps 5meter relief without penalty is perhaps a little lenient - I can see the occasional reasonable application for it.



The player should have declared an unsafe lie. No large "solid" object kept him from taking his stance.

you have describe what our lie is not, now can you describe what it is?

(This should be interesting since it will clearly illustrate that you are completely wrong about this topic as concerns playing it where it lies.)

Watch and learn (him squirm).

James,

I find your position so totally uninformed that I'm not sure where to begin.

Try throwing without moving your body other than your arm and having no contact with the ground on a 300 foot approach shot under a bush, then tell me that stance and footing in relation to obstacles doesn't have anything to do with fair play.

Nick

Is throwing motion simply the motion of your arm? Or is it everything your body does just prior to releasing the disc? What elements on the course affect that �Motion�? Only obstacles in the direct path of the disc to the hole? Do obstacles to run up have an affect on throwing motion? How about obstacles to stance? Do obstacles to run up (whether permanent or casual, intended by the director or not) have an affect on run up?



Gee Nick - that sound just like the argument I used for justifying throwing from "within" the bounds of the tee box last year :)



I would agree with you accept for the fact that point of release is used to define when you must be on your mark or on the tee pad, it has nothing to do with what you do leading up to that point. Obstacles and Relief deals with the entire process of run up stance and throwing motion, not just the point of release.

Suzette,

I am willing to compromise and have already done so with the "loose debris" definition and rule. I do not think that large solid obstacles (attached or not) should be permitted to be moved during a round for any of the three main reasons (run up, stance or throwing motion).

Nailing down what is "loose debris" is what would need to be figured out.

If it can not be figured out I'd prefer to go with intentionally move nothing.

Sure Nick - teeing off can be broken down to just the point of release. You make my point for me. But that's an old argument.

Glad to hear you are so open to compromise.

Also glad to know you're not on the rules committee.

Man what a convoluted discussion for what seems like such a straightforward issue.

If I understand Nick's point correctly, he wants the course to be the same for every player and to eliminate luck from the equation as much as he can. I have been playing sports of one sort or another for most of my life. Eliminating luck is IMPOSSIBLE period. The reality is that the better you get, the less luck impacts you. Essentially, you learn to make your good luck and you learn how to overcome bad luck; this is part of sport. Trying to make it perfect is, frankly, a waste of time. The kinds of differences you are talking about are inconsequential. In order for a branch to have an affect on the outcome the thrower has to make the perfect throw to hit the branch in such a way that it causes him/her to lose a stroke. Very improbable even if possible. The random events that occur on the course will have a greater impact than the actions or non-actions of the players. A gust of wind, a fart from the crowd. Give it up Nick, you're looking for perfection in an imperfect world.

Essentially, you learn to make your good luck and you learn how to overcome bad luck; this is part of sport.



Great point, Lyle. I think this is part of what makes disc golf interesting and fun.

Man what a convoluted discussion for what seems like such a straightforward issue.

If I understand Nick's point correctly, he wants the course to be the same for every player and to eliminate luck from the equation as much as he can. I have been playing sports of one sort or another for most of my life. Eliminating luck is IMPOSSIBLE period. The reality is that the better you get, the less luck impacts you. Essentially, you learn to make your good luck and you learn how to overcome bad luck; this is part of sport. Trying to make it perfect is, frankly, a waste of time. The kinds of differences you are talking about are inconsequential. In order for a branch to have an affect on the outcome the thrower has to make the perfect throw to hit the branch in such a way that it causes him/her to lose a stroke. Very improbable even if possible. The random events that occur on the course will have a greater impact than the actions or non-actions of the players. A gust of wind, a fart from the crowd. Give it up Nick, you're looking for perfection in an imperfect world.



Lyle, you are as close to getting it as is humanly possible without getting it at all.

I realize that the challenge we face on a golf course is infinitely varied from player to player. Not only does the course change from moment to moment but rarely if ever do players (other than on the tee pad, and even then...) find themselves facing the exact same challenge.

Can human beings control the universe? Can we force the course to stay exactly the same? Can we force players to face the exact same challenges? But wouldn't that be the perfect scenario for fair play?

We can not control branches, vines, sticks, pine cones, pine needles, falling out of trees. We cannot control boulders, stones, rocks and pebbles tumbling down hills or being exposed by erosion. We cannot control whether every player faces the same exact challenge. In short we cannot control fair, luck free, competition.

So what can we control, that would even help in the slightest fashion to increase the likelihood of presenting a uniform challenge and thereby more fair competitions?

They are known as �Rules of Play�; and they do not attempt to control Mother Nature or Lady Luck; they attempt to have players interact with each other and the course in a manner that increases the level of uniform challenge and fair play.

So even though we can never hope to present the exact same challenge and 100% ensure fair play due to the nature of "reality", does NOT mean that we cannot or should not attempt to do what we can to �increase� the level of uniform challenge and fairness whenever possible. That is what rules are for.

In short:
We cannot make rules that stop sticks from falling from trees.
We can make rules that stop players from purposefully moving sticks on the ground during competition.
We cannot make rules that stop trees from growing.
We can make rules that stop players from cutting them down during competition.

I hope that helped to clarify what I am talking about.

Lyle, you are as close to getting it as is humanly possible without getting it at all.

I realize that the challenge we face on a golf course is infinitely varied from player to player. Not only does the course change from moment to moment but rarely if ever do players (other than on the tee pad, and even then...) find themselves facing the exact same challenge.

Can human beings control the universe? Can we force the course to stay exactly the same? Can we force players to face the exact same challenges? But wouldn't that be the perfect scenario for fair play?

We can not control branches, vines, sticks, pine cones, pine needles, falling out of trees. We cannot control boulders, stones, rocks and pebbles tumbling down hills or being exposed by erosion. We cannot control whether every player faces the same exact challenge. In short we cannot control fair, luck free, competition.

So what can we control, that would even help in the slightest fashion to increase the likelihood of presenting a uniform challenge and thereby more fair competitions?

They are known as �Rules of Play�; and they do not attempt to control Mother Nature or Lady Luck; they attempt to have players interact with each other and the course in a manner that increases the level of uniform challenge and fair play.

So even though we can never hope to present the exact same challenge and 100% ensure fair play due to the nature of "reality", does NOT mean that we cannot or should not attempt to do what we can to �increase� the level of uniform challenge and fairness whenever possible. That is what rules are for.

In short:
We cannot make rules that stop sticks from falling from trees.
We can make rules that stop players from purposefully moving sticks on the ground during competition.
We cannot make rules that stop trees from growing.
We can make rules that stop players from cutting them down during competition.

I hope that helped to clarify what I am talking about.



Now Nick, this is why you have such a bad rep. It's fine to point out the short-comings of my argument (in fact it's fun to read your replies because your a smart guy) but try not to take, it personal, that way you won�t feel you need to attack people who don�t agree with you. On the other hand, I do like the complement non-complement ploy; my favorite is �man are you good looking, for a guy that got hit by a truck.�

"We can make rules that stop players from purposefully moving sticks on the ground during competition."

Let's build off of this point. The problem is, you can't stop players from accidentally moving sticks on the ground during competition. It is a fact of life. The amount of change made by players purposefully moving sticks, branches, rocks, bird doo, whatever, is inconsequential relative to the events of nature, crowds, and accidental branch - rock - bird doo movings by other players. The main thrust of my argument is that this rule will have no real impact on preventing modification of the playing field. Your intent is noble, fair play, your efforts to increase a level playing field are going to effect overall fairness by less than .001%. I'm not being facetious, simply recognizing the reality of the real world.

In all honesty, I don't care about the change you are proposing (if I understand it correctly). In fact, in some ways I support eliminating run ups except on the T-pad. This would solve your issue, and the issue of foot faults at the same time. However, I think the change you are proposing won't accomplish any more fairness. Therefore, on the grounds that I'm against change for the sake of change, I would have to be against it.


BTW - I'm sure this has been said but by adding in the rules modification you are suggesting, you've made the game more complex (did he mean to move that stick? Well I think so...) and possibly more dangerous (why is that guy screaming over there, he's affecting my putt. Well, he tripped over a branch in his run up and another one poked out his eye... Just ignore him and putt.). Yes, I know, unlikely and a rational player would simply adjust his/her play but a reality nonetheless. In the end, it's one more rule to enforce that will add little or nothing to the sport.

Lyle,

Let�s consider the content of your post rather than the tone:


"We can make rules that stop players from purposefully moving sticks on the ground during competition."

Let's build off of this point. The problem is, you can't stop players from accidentally moving sticks on the ground during competition. It is a fact of life.



So you are saying that because it is a fact of life that people move things on a course inadvertently, that we should not have rules protecting obstacles from being move intentionally, is that correct?


The amount of change made by players purposefully moving sticks, branches, rocks, bird doo, whatever, is inconsequential relative to the events of nature, crowds, and accidental branch - rock - bird doo movings by other players.



That is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that rules can govern what is allowed for people to do and not do, they cannot govern what nature does? We already have rules that do not allow the intentional movement of obstacles (casual or not) within our rules, so not only is it possible to discern �intention� it has already been decided that movement of obstacles already is considered of �consequence� to fair play. I am merely proposing strengthening those rules.


The main thrust of my argument is that this rule will have no real impact on preventing modification of the playing field. Your intent is noble, fair play, your efforts to increase a level playing field are going to effect overall fairness by less than .001%.



This is your opinion. It is my opinion, and the clear intent of the rules of play we already have that preservation of the challenge the course presents is worth legislating. I believe the increase would be larger than .001%, it certainly would be 99.999% more than allowing folks to move stuff around under our current rule.

If adopted, there would be no more injuries than under our current rules, and the change to our game itself would be zero. Why?

Because under other current rules we have already learned to deal with obstacles that can not be moved, bent or broken and we have learned to judge when something is safe to do and when something is not safe to do.

I make no comment on your intellectual prowess, only to the content of your post.

Regards,
Nick

So you are saying that because it is a fact of life that people move things on a course inadvertently, that we should not have rules protecting obstacles from being move intentionally, is that correct?



OOOOH OOOOOH me me let me answer :) No Nick - he's saying that the overall movement of objects on the course - be it unintentional, or a part of nature - and the changes to the challenge of the course they provide - far exceed anything a player could do - so in comparison - your "legislating" of the movement of objects is insignificant.
See - he said it right here -and you quoted it - you didn't need to re-phrase it to suit your argument......


The amount of change made by players purposefully moving sticks, branches, rocks, bird doo, whatever, is inconsequential relative to the events of nature, crowds, and accidental branch - rock - bird doo movings by other players.



That is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that rules can govern what is allowed for people to do and not do, they cannot govern what nature does? We already have rules that do not allow the intentional movement of obstacles (casual or not) within our rules, so not only is it possible to discern �intention� it has already been decided that movement of obstacles already is considered of �consequence� to fair play. I am merely proposing strengthening those rules.



We understand what you have been proposing Nick - we just find it useless. For as wonderful a precept as you have (making the course exactly the same for all players), the reality of nature is that that condition never exists - so trying to legislate it into existence is a giant waste of time!!


It is my opinion, and the clear intent of the rules of play we already have that preservation of the challenge the course presents is worth legislating.


Which is why Nick - we already have rules in place that legislate what sorts of objects can be moved, and what sort cannot. Could they use further definition? OK go for it!! Your current proposal of everything over the size of a nickel is just a little too extreme - so try again!!

Two things Nick,

First, its always great to meet someone who has the same sense of humor that I do. But, you should know, only my wife is allowed to comment on my intellectual prowess... or lack thereof. :D

Second, what Craig said. :D

Two in return Lyle,

1) I never had you pegged as a duck and cover debater.
2) Craig, glad you have come around to the idea of tightening up this important rule. Take my word for it the PDGA Rules Committee is of similar thinking. The result might not go as far as I'd like, but further than you like. That may be just about right.

Regards,
Nick

I couldn't help but notice Lyle's half-hearted admittance of prefering the concept of no fairway run-ups...only from the tee box!

That sounds like it's two of us Lyle! :D:D (I still haven't deciphered where Nick actually stands on the issue...:D)

I couldn't help but notice Lyle's half-hearted admittance of prefering the concept of no fairway run-ups...only from the tee box!

That sounds like it's two of us Lyle! :D:D (I still haven't deciphered where Nick actually stands on the issue...:D)



Larry,

On which issue? Fairway run ups? I have no problem with our current rule concerning fairway run ups. Admittedly, no allowing them would increase compliance, but so would FOLLOWING THE RULES.

If you were talking about obstacles & relief, I think I have been definitely clear.

Nick

Take my word for it the PDGA Rules Committee is of similar thinking. The result might not go as far as I'd like, but further than you like. That may be just about right.



Frankly, it scares me to think that the committee would embrace anything like you suggested, especially if they use the same flawed logic and reasons you espouse. Adoption of your proposal would be a major setback: not only because of the lunacy of the specific rule, but because it would erode faith in the stewardship of the sport.

Somewhere in the bowels of this thread I think what Nick proposed was that we eliminate the portion of the rules that refer to the removal of casual items from the run up area (I think he actually defined the items by size). Can you reiterate your rules adjustment Nick?

Actually, I really favor the no run up rule. Here is why:

Cong stated it best, "the most broken, least called rule." I believe that as players mature they try harder and harder to obey this rule. I think that is good, I also think it is very difficult if you take any kind of a serious run up. Take a look at last years NT video/DVD. You can see, in those shots where you can see foot placement and marker that the pros try valiantly to hit their mark. You will also see that often they miss. Not by much but nonetheless. In one section I saw one pro make four foot faults in a row on fairway drives after teeing off, all by less than three inches.

Rhett of SC argues that it can be done if you focus on foot placement and he is correct. The problem is that it changes your game. It is obvious that at every level people don't want to make this modification. Yes, the good players try and hit it, but it is clear that they won't sacrifice their game to do so. What does that leave us with? A situation that is rife with problems and inequity. Guys like Rhett claim they hit their spot all the time (within reason) but my observation is that guys are trying but not quite there. Is trying enough? I agree with Rhett and Nick that the solution is for people to obey the rules, I'm convinced that isn't going to happen within the current approach to the sport. So we have situations like this one, no casual item removal in the run up, and the two meter rule changes, both rules that are or were easily observed and called, being focused on and changed; as verses a rule which can result in great unfairness and a lot of problems, being ignored.

The simple solution, no run up in the fairway, yes this would change the sport, but less than you think. In my discussions with Rhett a year ago, he pushed me to try and obey the rule 100%. As a consequence, I learned that to get good distance and accuracy on fairway drives I could stand in and throw forehand. I can now throw a 280 to 300 foot forehand shot standing flatfooted. My guess is there are pros out there that could throw significantly further under the same conditions. There would be no more 800 foot holes with two monster drives but there would be 800 foot holes with one monster drive and very good forehand drives or stand in rollers or even stand in backhands. The distance might be 30 or 40 feet less, but good enough to get the job done.

Here is Nick's proposal:

Here is the actual language of the revision I endorse:

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
A. Obstacles to a Run Up, Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for unintentional obstacles by 803.04 B or for loose debris by 803.04 C. Once a legal stance is taken, no relief is granted from any intentional or natural obstacles, as they are all considered part of the course. A player may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle in order to make room for a run up, stance or throwing motion.

B. Unintentional Obstacles: A player may move obstacles that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.

C. Loose Debris: A player may obtain relief from loose debris by moving the debris within the time allowed to throw by 801.03 (Excessive Time). Loose debris is not considered by the rules a distraction, so it may not be used to restart the time allowed to throw.

D. Director Designated Areas of Relief: A player may take relief from any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round, such as unintended water, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment and spectators. A player may obtain relief to obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion as follows: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, 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 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). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.

D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official. Intentional movement of any object without a majority group or official determination shall be considered a violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

F. A player who purposely damages anything on the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with section 804.05 A (2).

806 Glossary

Intentional Obstacle: All obstacles on the course that are considered as an integral part of the course, including but not limited to trees, bushes, walls, stones, logs or sticks intentionally placed for erosion control, large unattached branches or vines that fell prior to the start of the round.

Unintentional Obstacles: All obstacles that became a factor during the round.

Loose Debris: Small debris located on the playing surface that may have become a factor prior or during the round that is not considered an integral part of the course, such as sticks and vines no thicker than 2 centimeters or longer than 1 meter, loose stones and rocks no larger than 10 centimeters round and garbage. Relief from these obstacles is generally granted for safety concerns surrounding the footing of run up and stance. No relief is provided for throwing motion.

Frankly, it scares me to think that the committee would embrace anything like you suggested, especially if they use the same flawed logic and reasons you espouse. Adoption of your proposal would be a major setback: not only because of the lunacy of the specific rule, but because it would erode faith in the stewardship of the sport.



James,

This is an interesting statement considering you have not made any significant or successful point in defence of letting people continue to move significant obstacles to their run up, stance and throwing motion.

Care to provide even one? (Besides the prevailing, "The rule is right, because it is a rule.")

Regards,
Nick

Yep, that's it, and though it might need some tightening up here and there, I am still pleased with how it would apply to play.

In defense: Safety. Equity.

Nick, no need to rebut. You win.

In defense: Safety. Equity.

Nick, no need to rebut. You win.



Of course I win, but that still doesn't answer my question about what exactly you feel is "flawed logic or reasons" on my part.

Safety: How is this a logical argument for rules? If we really want to be safe then make a rule not to play at all! I'll give you hazardous animals and insects and support the continued use of "Unsafe Lie", but how is a casual obstacle more dangerous than a permanent one? It isn't! They are identical in form and behavior.

Equity: How can it be more equitable to allow the course to be changed so that each player faces a different challenge? In the defence of Equity, shouldn't we do everything possible, within reason, to ensure that everyone plays the same course? How could anything be fairer than that? (Legalized Cheating!?!)

Gary,

How would you define our disc golf "lie"?
Does such a thing exist?
Without it, how can we play disc "golf"?
How about "lie" as it pertains to the general game of golf?

Regards,
Nick



The lie is the starting point to the throw in disc golf. If there is an obstacle between the lie and the hole, you straddle to get around. Players have to place a single supporting point on the lie (a spot 30 cm behind the mark on LOP). This does not meet the standard of playing it where it lies.

If you throw is behind a bush or tree, you would have to play from behind the obstacle, not stretch to one side and readh your arm even further around the obstacle to throw. Most players have a range of at least 5' to avoid an obstacle directly on front of the lie.

The topic of safety and casual obstacles has already been covered here. Most casual obstacles are things on the playing surface that would likely cause unstable footing. Most permanent obstacles are of sufficient size to not be easily dislodged when stepped on.

I won't be on the board much for a week or so, so carry on without me.

Gary,

Have a nice break.

I once held the same position as you concerning our "Disc Golf Lie", I mean how could our lie be like Ball Golf's Lie when we can pick it up, change the disc, step out, back or through obstacles, clear debris and even larger obstacles and fling it in almost an infinite variety of ways from as many different trajectories as we can physically manage, right? How can that be "Playing it where it lies"?

Well, in the outward sense of Ball Golf�s definition we literally "can not play it where it lies". We cannot leave the disc on the ground or bunch of sticks and run up and strike it and suddenly have it start flying towards the hole. The conditions immediately around and in contact with the disc at rest (sticks, mud, water, stones, concrete, logs, etc) do not have a direct influence on the possible trajectory, speed and accuracy with which the disc can be propelled.

So the question is this: Playing it where it lies is �THEE MOST IMPORTANT RULE IN THE GAME OF GOLF (not ball or disc, but GOLF)� so how do we bring a modicum of similarity to disc golf where we are propelling it with our body and arm rather than a club, and the restriction is not the location and conditions of the ball at rest, but of a supporting point of our body placed on the location of where our disc came to rest? In essence the question is how do we make our Disc Golf �Lie� behave as similarly as possible to Golf�s �Play it where it lies�? What is a �Disc Golf Lie�?

Our Rules of Play Glossary gives the following definition:
�Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.�

By this it is clear that the lie is intended to primarily be the �spot on the playing surface�, but also mentioned is the �players stance�. Playing it where it lies in Ball Golf has to do with the exact and specific conditions of the ball in relation to surrounding obstacles, but it also has to do with the conditions of the moving player and club in relation to the surrounding obstacles.

I propose to you that play it where it lies in Disc Golf is in fact exactly the same as in Ball Golf with the sole difference that in DG we pick up the projectile and one of our supporting points takes the place of the projectile in restricting the possible trajectories and setting the exact conditions surrounding our lie, rather than the projectile itself restricting those things. In this way �Play It Where It Lies� has just as significant a meaning in Disc Golf as it does in Ball Golf; because it is not as specific to either particular sport as it is to the �Game� of golf itself (and independent of those two forms of it).

All of the conditions of a Disc Golf Lie are factors that must be considered and dealt with, just as in Ball Golf, but rather than addressing the ball and conditions surrounding it, the swing and conditions that influence it and your footing and conditions that surround it, we in Disc Golf must deal with having a supporting point in a specified location and then deal with our run up, stance and throwing motions and �ALL� of the conditions surrounding them.

To consciously or purposefully alter those conditions surrounding our Disc Golf Lie is to fundamentally violate the �GOLF� precept of �Play It Where It Lies�.

When the earliest golfers where banging their way around the sheep fields and moors of Scotland do you think they allowed their competitors to move sticks, sheep droppings, stones or large downed tree limbs? Hell no! Play it where it lies! And the effect on a ball mixed into all of that poses a far greater challenge than the one we face being able to pick the projectile up and step in a variety of directions and propel it in a variety of ways. Do you see PGA tour players flinging sticks and rocks out of the way of their ball or stance out on the fairways during majors? Hell no! Play it where it lies! To do any of those things to gain an advantage in run up, stance or throwing motion is the height of �CHEATING� in the �Game of Golf�. It is in direct violation of �Playing It Where It Lies�.

In review: �Playing It Where It Lies� has more to it than simply where we place our supporting point on what is defined as our �Lie� in disc golf; it has to do with �ALL CONDITIONS� immediately affecting our run up, stance and throwing motion, similarly to how in Ball Golf �Play It Where It Lies� has to do with more than the immediate situation of the ball and what it is resting in or on; it has to do with �ALL CONDITIONS� immediately affecting their stance and swing. In each case, in order to protect the game of golf�s most basic rule, to play it where it lies, the exact conditions of that lie must be preserved. And for that to happen our rules AND our understanding of �Golf� must be united and emphatically clear.

Obviously they are not, and understandably so; due to years of institutionalize abuse of that tenet:

PLAY IT WHERE IT LIES

Regards,
Nick

PS: Consider the following: �Man! That is a bad lie!� Is the person referring to the actual condition of the 30cm Line of Play behind the placed Marker on the playing surface, or are they referring to �ALL OF THE CONDITIONS� surrounding it and the affect they are likely to have on run up, stance and throwing motion?

Answer honestly.

A question for ball golfers since the holy grail of golf is playing it where it lies and not changing the course.

Are you allowed to move twigs and leaves from around your ball as long as you do cause any movement of your ball ? I seem to recall watching players on TV flipping small things from around their ball before addressing the ball. I also think I have seen them on the green removing leaves and things that are between their ball and the hole.

Is this a just me remembering things that didn't happen, or are you allowed to clean clutter from around your ball ?

�Man! That is a bad lie!� Is the person referring to the actual condition of the 30cm Line of Play behind the placed Marker on the playing surface, or are they referring to �ALL OF THE CONDITIONS� surrounding it and the affect they are likely to have on run up, stance and throwing motion?



Noone I know is talking about the 2 cm sticks and rocks on the ground. Most people consider my "lie" to essentially mean my options under the current rules, not my options under Nicks rule.

Good luck Gary and remember that in the future, if the USDGC wants to remain first class, they had better start accurately mapping all the sticks and stones. The marshalls can then use their free time making sure that those objects don't move and assessing the associated penalties.

James,

Very funny, but your mad scramble to avoid the real issues involved is definitely and clearly on display here.

Do we have officials frantically running around now making sure that players do not damage or change what we currently (and erroneously) call �permanent obstacles�?

No, this new, more �GOLF-LIKE� interpretation of �Play It Where It Lies� will, like all other rules, need to be policed mainly by the players watching themselves. And there is nothing new about that.

James, are you afraid of facing a little more challenge out on the course? Sure seems like it�

Regards,
Nick

Yes, that must be the answer. I couldn't possibly be opposed to a nonsensical, unnecessary proposal based on its own merits.

Anyways, like clock work, you ignore my answer that a lie is essentially your options under the rules, not your options in Nick's alternative universe.

Yes, that must be the answer. I couldn't possibly be opposed to a nonsensical, unnecessary proposal based on its own merits.

Anyways, like clock work, you ignore my answer that a lie is essentially your options under the rules, not your options in Nick's alternative universe.



Yes, James, I have understood for some time now that you have, as has Craig, fallen back on the argument that "the rule is right because it is the rule, so it must be right".

Unfortunately, in this specific case it is not right and needs to be changed and brought into the family of "golf" rules, and away from the "putt putt rules" (which served their purpose, but it is time to grow up now).

Before you call the golf tenet of Play It Where It Lies "nonsensical" and "unnecessary" perhaps you ought to come up with at least one argument that defends our current rules position that heeving obstacles around our course is ok or that we deserve to have good footing and carefree run up and throwing motion on every throw. Just one...

Do you see PGA tour players flinging sticks and rocks out of the way of their ball or stance out on the fairways during majors? Hell no!



I don't pretend to know anything about the rule structures of BG but I do know I have seen guys moving sticks before. Don't know the call or situation, just know I've seen it.

A question for ball golfers since the holy grail of golf is playing it where it lies and not changing the course.

Are you allowed to move twigs and leaves from around your ball as long as you do cause any movement of your ball ? I seem to recall watching players on TV flipping small things from around their ball before addressing the ball. I also think I have seen them on the green removing leaves and things that are between their ball and the hole.

Is this a just me remembering things that didn't happen, or are you allowed to clean clutter from around your ball ?



Nope, I've seen it too and as in my last post, I've seen guys move sticks.

Heck, didn't Tiger once employ the gallery to move a boulder once?

So here's the play. A guy steps up to his lie. Behind him there is a loose spread of large rocks. There is no place that he can put his back or away foot. He lightly rests his foot on one of the rocks. Just as he putts the rock moves and his foot displaces it. Foot foul? He says it was unintentional but was it? He could have planned it out in advance. You make the call.

Nick,

Gary and James don't want to leave the rule as it is simply because that's the way it is. They want to leave it that way because the change you are proposing creates more problems than it solves. It's kind of like going to war in Iraq. Will it solve terrorism or will it create more problems? James has even said that he would be willing to support a viable alternative as would I, but what you are proposing won't create fair play. It will simply make more opportunities for misinterpretation. Furthermore, as has been discussed before, it won't truly have any impact on fairness relative to unintentional events. Given the large number of issues facing DG, it just seems there are better places where someone of your formidable debating skills could be contributing.

Lyle,

I hear what you and they are saying, I simply disagree, and believe that I have fair play and a basic tenet of the game of golf more squarely in mind.

I have opened the door to discussion on what should remain or be able to be moved during competitive play (sticks and rocks below a certain size, etc) and they cling to the rule that allows them to make wholesale changes to the obstacles on and the challenges of a course. That is unacceptable.

You question our ability to judge whether a player "intentionally" or "unintentionally" moves something. Well, Lyle, did you know that we already do that and have since we've had written rules? Every time we take a stance and throw we have to do that.

Bottom Line: If we cannot ask PDGA Tournament Players to elevate their care for and protection of our courses then how can we expect non-tour players to have any respect.

Allowing fewer obstacles to be moved during tournament play is not only right rules-wise, it is right for the sport as a whole, by increasing awareness of how important our course and the obstacles on them are, and that we need to take an active role in making sure people comply with the rules and protect the resources of our courses.

Pre-emptive Strike:

"Yeah, but what about tiny sticks and rocks, pine cones and nuts?"

Fine, let's clearly define what is ok to move and what is not. I have less challenge with allowing those things mentioned above being moved "anywhere" on the course at "anytime" than I do large boulders, logs, hanging vines, or features of the course that are very likely to not only affect the "flight" of the disc, but also significantly affect run up, stance and throwing motion potentials. These larger obstacles, that were there at the start of the round, must be assumed to have been left there purposefully by the Director or Course Pro and should be afforded the same protections as what we currently call "permanent" obstacles. If a player has an issue with any of them, make a note, and bring it to the Directors attention between rounds (when action can be taken that does not affect either that players ease of run up, stance, throwing motion, and flight path or subsequent players ease of run up, stance, throwing motion and flight path.

�Yeah, but how are we to judge what can be moved and what can�t and when something is intentionally moved or when it is unintentional?�

You already do, this just provides for more clear guidelines of what can and what can�t be moved, you still and always have to use your judgment about �intention. At least now you can speak up and say with a greater degree of certainty, when you see a guy/gal flinging large sticks and rocks this way and that, that they should stop immediately, site the rules, enforce penalties if needed, but at the least do your part to preserve the challenge and natural resources of our courses (not to mention the intended and �actual� challenge created by the course designer and pro.

Regards,
Nick

here's what i sent to the website and board monitor contact emails:

Not sure why conrad is ignoring PM's , but there needs to be an apology to hawk for the scurrilous way in which his avatar was deleted without so much as the courtesy of asking him to remove it. It's not like it was even offensive, in fact it was as tame as the article in DGWN featuring playboy bunnies. Being there is no clear policy on avatars, it is patently unfair to remove them without first creating guidelines as to what is allowed and what is not. At the very least a warning or Pm asking him to remove it would have been a better way to handle this. I am a board monitor for another site and a volunteer for the PDGA also, yet this does not make me, or any of us, from making mistakes. the best way to handle a mistake is to apologize and correct the situation so that there is a clear process to follow in the future to avoid such mistakes. Avoiding the issue will NOT make it go away, and the board members will not continue to be ignored. If you like we will go as far as calling for a vote for the board monitor and IT positions, so as to have some accountablility for the actions of the people running the message board.

Rich Myers
PDGA#19614
Patapsco Picnic and Rockburn Challenge TD

Rich,

Do you think I was avoiding you? Next time just shoot me a PM, no need to interrupt discussions with this sort of stuff.

Nick

This topic is sure to be revisited in the future because our relief rules are just too liberal in how they allow our competitive environment to be altered.